THE STATE EX REL. CARTER, APPELLANT, v. SCHOTTEN, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
Nos. 94-603, 94-604 and 94-670
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
August 24, 1994
70 Ohio St.3d 89 | 1994-Ohio-37
Submitted May 16, 1994. APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, Nos. 93-T-4873, 93-T-4992 and 93-T-5006.
{¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Kenneth L. Carter, an inmate at Trumbull Correctional Institution (“TCI“), appeals three judgments of the Trumbull County Court of Appeals dismissing his petitions for writs of mandamus to compel respondent-appellee, James L. Schotten, TCI Warden, to perform certain acts related to Carter‘s circumstances of confinement.
{¶ 2} In case No. 94-603, Carter‘s petition alleged that respondent had failed to provide an adequate prison law library and reasonable access to the library. Carter claimed that respondent‘s actions had violated his constitutional rights,
{¶ 3} In case No. 94-604, Carter‘s petition alleged that respondent had failed to provide indigent inmates with legal supplies, postage for legal mail, free photocopying of legal documents, and notary services. Carter claimed that he had
{¶ 4} In case No. 94-670, Carter‘s petition alleged that respondent had a duty pursuant to
{¶ 5} The court of appeals issued alternative writs in all three cases, ordering respondent to show cause why Carter‘s requested relief should not be granted. Respondent subsequently filed various responsive pleadings. The court of appeals ultimately dismissed all three petitions on the basis that a federal civil rights action under
{¶ 6} These causes are now before the court upon appeals as of right. In that they raise similar issues of law, we sua sponte consolidate them for purposes of decision.
Kenneth L. Carter, pro se.
Lee Fisher, Attorney General, and Todd R. Marti, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7} In order to be entitled to the writs of mandamus he requested, Carter had to establish that he possesses a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested acts, and that Carter has no plain and adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Botkins v. Laws (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 383, 632 N.E.2d 897; State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 15 O.O.3d 53, 399 N.E.2d 81, paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶ 8} The court of appeals’ dismissal of Carter‘s mandamus actions was premised solely upon its determination that Carter had a plain and adequate remedy at law. A writ of mandamus will not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
{¶ 9} Under certain circumstances, a Section 1983 action provides an adequate legal remedy which renders a mandamus action unavailable in a state court proceeding. See, e.g., Ohio Academy of Nursing Homes, Inc. v. Barry (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 120, 564 N.E.2d 686. A Section 1983 action provides a supplement to any state remedy, and there is no general requirement that state judicial or administrative remedies be exhausted in order to commence a Section 1983 action.1 Steinglass, Section 1983 Litigation in State Courts (1993) 2-5-2-6, Section 2.3; 1 Schwartz & Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims, Defenses, and Fees (2 Ed.1991) 607, Section 10.5. Furthermore, a Section 1983 action can provide declaratory, injunctive, and/or monetary relief. Id. at 831, Section 16.1. In some situations, this remedy can prove speedier than habeas corpus relief. Armstrong v. Cardwell (C.A.6, 1972), 457 F.2d 34, 36, fn. 3. State prisoners challenging the
{¶ 10} In Carter‘s three petitions, he attacks the circumstances of his confinement, e.g., the adequacy of the prison library, the standard of indigency for eligibility for free legal supplies, postage and copies, and the sufficiency of the prison clothing. Therefore, to the extent that he claims that respondent‘s actions violated his federal constitutional and statutory rights, a Section 1983 action would provide him with complete, beneficial, and speedy relief and therefore constituted an adequate legal remedy which precluded mandamus relief.2
{¶ 11} Nevertheless, Section 1983 does not encompass official conduct that violates only state law; rather, the statute is limited to deprivations of federal constitutional and statutory rights. Shirokey v. Marth (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 113, 116, 585 N.E.2d 407, 410; Kulwicki v. Dawson (C.A.3, 1992), 969 F.2d 1454, 1468; Huron Valley Hosp., Inc. v. Pontiac (C.A.6, 1989), 887 F.2d 710, 714; Schwartz & Kirklin, supra, at 9, Section 1.2. Consequently, in that Carter‘s petitions may be construed to raise violations of both state statutes,
{¶ 12} However, a reviewing court is not authorized to reverse a correct judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as a basis thereof. State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 222, 631 N.E.2d 150, 154; Myers v. Garson (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 614, 614 N.E.2d 742, 745. In case Nos. 94-603 and 94-604, respondent filed what were essentially motions for summary judgment and Carter responded to both motions. In case No. 94-603, Carter claimed in his petition that he could not “adequately respond” to any memorandum in opposition to his application for reconsideration of his direct appeal from his criminal conviction because of the alleged inadequacy of the TCI law library. He stated in his petition that he had prepared his original application in a different prison, which he did not contend had an inadequate law library. In case No. 94-604, Carter‘s petition did not allege that any action filed by him had been prejudiced by the alleged unconstitutional indigency standard used by respondent.
{¶ 13} In both case Nos. 94-603 and 94-604, Carter contended that respondent‘s actions denied him his constitutional right of access to the courts. The fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires that prisoners have a meaningful opportunity to present claims to the court. Bounds v. Smith (1977), 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72. Bounds requires that prison officials, such as respondent, provide inmates with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in law, in order to assist in the preparation for filing meaningful legal papers. State ex rel. Greene v. Enright (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 729, 590 N.E.2d 1257. However, ”Bounds did not hold that there is a right of access to a law library; it held that there is a right of access to the courts.” (Emphasis sic.) Strickler v. Waters (C.A.4, 1993), 989 F.2d 1375, 1385; see, also,
{¶ 14} Further, in case No. 94-603,
{¶ 15} However, in case No. 94-670, dismissal of Carter‘s state claim, based on a violation of
{¶ 16} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgments in case Nos. 94-603 and 94-604 are affirmed, and the judgment in case No. 94-670 is affirmed as to any federal claims raised and reversed as to Carter‘s state claims, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgments in case Nos. 94-603 and 94-604 affirmed.
Judgment in case No. 94-670 affirmed in part and, reversed in part, and cause remanded.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, WRIGHT, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur in judgment only.