Brown, Robert Ford III, WR-71,460-04

Brown, Robert Ford III

WR-71,460-04

| Tex. App. | Apr 23, 2015

Check Treatment

Case Information

Abel Acosta Clerk PO Box 12308 Austin, TX 78711

MOTION DENIED DATE: U-74-1C BY: $◻$

4-20-6 71,400-04

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS APR 232015 Abel Acosta, Clerk Per Mr. Acosta Can you please file this Emergency Motion for Access to Courts ? present it to the Court so they can put it on the docket? set a hecring.

Sincerely,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

ACCESS TO COURTS, COUNSEL &; PUBLIC OFFICIALS

NUMBER: ATC-050 (Rev. 4) DATE: August 1, 2005

PAGE: $1$ of 2 SUPERSEDES: AM-03.81.050 (Rev. 3) January 1, 1992

SUBJECT:

PURPOSE:

To establish when and where legal work may be conducted and provide guidance for an offender who requests assistance from another offender.

PROCEDURES:

I. Location and Times A. Offenders may conduct legal work during their off work hours either in their housing area, in the unit's library, or in other locations specified by the unit Warden. B. Times for law library usage must be specified on the law library schedule, and such times must take into consideration all offenders' work hours and scheduled activities.

"Scheduled Activities" are programmatic activities and shall consist of both academic and vocational classes at the elementary and secondary school levels (Grades 1-12).
Offender college hour(s), craft shop, recreation, gymnasium, church, counseling, etc., are not programmatic activities. II. Offenders Assisting Other Offenders on Legal Matters: A. A "Same-Session Visit" is a visit that each of two (2) general population offenders must request, via an I-60 to the unit Access to Courts Supervisor requesting to be scheduled to attend a regularly scheduled law library session for the sole purpose of discussing or preparing legal issues. Priority in scheduling these same session visits shall be given to offenders articulating an urgent need (e.g. court deadline, co-parties, etc.) for the visit.

*3 B. The rules permit unit law libraries to enforce a "no talking without permission" rule. The purpose of this rule is to prohibit some offenders from disrupting others in the law library. Unless the permission of the law library staff is obtained, only two offenders at a time may work together. Under normal circumstances, there is no provision to deny such legal discussions, and the law library staff is to facilitate such legal work. However, the "no talking without permission" rule can be selectively enforced (i.e., used when needed for certain offenders), and these offender's discussions may be limited to 15-20 minutes. Whereas, other offenders may be permitted to quietly converse regarding legal matters the entire law library session. C. Due to different work assignments or scheduled activities, two (2) offenders may be precluded from attending a regularly scheduled law library session at the same time. In such a case, the visit shall be scheduled like that of segregated offenders (ATC-055). One of the offenders must submit a request to the unit Access to Courts Supervisor requesting an offender/offender legal visit. The unit Access to Courts Supervisor shall arrange a time in which the two offenders may be assigned to the law library to work together. Each such legal visit requires a request from one of the offenders, and during the legal visit offenders must actively engage in some form of legal work. Social visits are prohibited. D. Under normal, routine conditions and security concerns, general population same session visits cannot be denied if the offenders engage in legal work. E. Offenders on the same or other units may correspond about legal matters, provided that they are co-parties in a currently active legal matter or an offender is providing a relevant witness affidavit in a'currently active legal matter (BP-03.91, "Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules" and ATC034, "Correspondence Qualification and Supply Issuance"). F. The unit Access to Courts Supervisor shall attempt to assist an offender with a disability that potentially impairs his ability to obtain access to courts. G. The unit Access to Courts Supervisor shall assist monolingual (Spanish) offenders through the use of unit interpreters or by providing names of bilingual offenders who may assist them. A list of monolingual/Spanishspeaking offenders on a specific unit is available on the TDCJ Mainframe INFOPAC System.

*4 Courts,' Johnson II, 910 F. Supp. (21212, Then BP 03, 81 dated April 20, 2012 States officers, employees, or agents of TBCJ shall not interfere with, harass, punish, or otherwise penalize any offender as a result of participation in litigation, either as a party or a witness, or for filing or threatening to file a lawsuit, grievance, appeal, or other complaint about prison conditions or official misconduct, or for discussing with others or writing in accordance with TBCJ rules, regulations to others about actual or potential legal action or other forms of grievance, complaint. So, as you can clearly see that LibIII Baker is violating Board Policy 03,81 because there wasn't a legitimate reason to only allow 20 minutes for a Sane Session visit to discuss a prepare legal work. There is definitely ample space to do it since they have "never" used the overflow in the general library, since LibIII Baker has arrived he's never used the Saturday Session. You can clearly see that all his changes are to discourage, retaliate עמinness because of using the grievance system, when I have the right sentitled to access to courts. Because in actuality he's changed the name to "Denial of Access to Courts" when the original name is "Access to Courts" because if you have the very smallest ty po in your request he'll deny your request. For example every offender with a job title of Inside Medical has the work hours of 6a-2p. Well you could accidently forget to put the time or accidently put 3pm? he will deny your request. Which is very petty when there is only one time for that job. He tries to limit the amount of people in the law library. On average there's only about 20 people in there when it holds 4b 3 the overflow holds 30 more,

*5 PRAVER Wherefore, Premises Considered the Applicant Respectfully Pays this Honorable Court GRANTS this Motion for Access to Court. To Change the X -tra time from 30 mins to 90 mins & the Same Session Legal Visits from 20 mins to 90 mins. Applicant further PRAYS this Court GRANT all other relief not explicitly requested; yet may be entitled to as a matter of Law' equity Respectfully Submitted

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to Certify that on April 20th, 2015 a COPY of the foregoing was sent to the Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12368 Austin, TX 78711, the D.A. Jane buty 105 S. Martin Luther King Box 1 Georgetown, TX 786274 to Vicky Borrow-Regional Dir. for Access to Courts for TBC 1060 Hunt 1906 Huntsville, TX 77340

April 20th, 2015

No, WR-71,460-04 Ex Parte Robert Brown III $\underset{& a m p;}{5}$ In the Court of $\underset{& a m p;}{5}$ Trininal Appeals of Texas

HEARING

I respectfully request a hearing regarding this Motion for Access to Courts 1. request that this matter to be put on the Court pocket. The Court hereby GRANTS/DENIES a hearing on this motion,

The hearing date will be Signed this day of 2015

*7 No. WR-71, 460-64

Ex Parte

II. Offenders Asssisting other Offenders on Legal Matters: A. A "Same-Session Visit" is a visit that each of two (2) general population offenders must request, via an I-60 to the Unit Access to Courts Supervisor requesting to be scheduled to attend a regularly scheduled law library Session for the sole purpose of discussing or preparing legal issues. B. The rules permit unit law libraries to enforce a "No talking without permission" rule. The purpose of this rule is to prohibit some offenders from others disruptive behaviors in the law library. Under Nornal Circunstances, there is no provision to deny such legal work. However, the "No talkins without permission" rule"be selectively enforced? these offenders' discussions may be limited to 1500 minutes. Whereas, other offenders may be permitted to quietly converse regarding legal matters the "ENTIRE" law library Session (Refer to Exibit A) the TBC Access to Courts-50 When? Where legal work may be performed.

II

So, as you can clearly see that LibTf Robert Boter Unit Access to Courts Supervisor is violating ATC-50? my 1 st Amendment rights. Because I need adequate, meaningful

*9 2 tinely tine to prepare? present My case. Prior to Lib. III K. Baker taking over the Lolv Library around June 2013 the 3 previous law library Supervisors Greenway, Bordin ^[3] Petty allowed us to have 2 hrs of 1 -tra tine per day for 5 days a week. Meaning we had 20 hrs of access to the law library per week as well as a 2 hr legal visit per day for 5 days to either receive assistance or give assistance with legal work. Say that had been going on atleast since JAN. 2007. Which is when I arrived on the unit. Now he is starting to take more ^[3] more books off the holding list 3 out the law library to try 3 discourage us from fighting our case. There is a steady decline ^[3] constant rule changes in the negative when those mies were in place the previous 7yrs without any turnpil. According to Green v Nclaskle 789 F. 2 d $111 / 2$ that I'q to have meaningfi, Adequate ^[3] timely time to access tle law library. Thenin Johnson v Avery 89 S.Ct 747-While there is technically no intepeated right to assist, prison officials yay not prevent such assistonce or reaticate for providing such assistonce where no reasonable atterent are available. Thenin Gassler v Kayl 862F.2d 706 -states Courts have recognized that prisoners are entitled to receive assistonce from yailhase lawyers where no reasonable atternatiog are present ^[3] to deny this assistonce ctenies the constitutional right of access to the courts. I'q only allowed a 20 yinute visit which of course is not adequate tine to discuss my case with a "Dail House" lawyer ^[3] get any type of meaningfi help. Then I'q only allowed 30 yinute of xtra time to do any type of addfl research. Which of course is not adequate or meaningfyl.

*10 It States in Lewis v Casey III s.Ct. 2174 that Adequate law libraries in prisons are one constitutionally acceptable metld to assure meaningful access to courts, but alternative Means are not necessarily foreclosed; local experimentation is encouraged, but any plan must be evaluated as a whole to ascertain its Compliance with Constitutionel Standards. 42 U.S.C.A 31983 U.S.C.A. Const. Amend 14. Then in Snyder, v Nolen 380 F.3d 279,280 (2000) it States in order to provide inyates a Meaningful right to access the courts, "States are required to provide affirmative assistance in the preparation of legal papers in cases involving constitutional rights 3 other civil rights actions related to their incarceration, but in all other types of civil actions related to their incarceration, but in all other types of civil actions, States must not erect barriers that impede the right of access of incarcerated persons." Then in Hickson vAllison 928 Sw 2d 678 it States not only must the prison maintain an adequate law library, prison authorities must provide the inmates with useful access to the law library. Then Green v Johnson 977 F.2d 1383 States that "Any deliberate impediment to access [to the Courts], even a de ter of access, may constitute a constitutional deprivation." Then if you refer to Woods v Smith 60 F.3d 1161,1164 (6* 1995) prison officials may not retaliate against or harass an inyate for exertising the right of access to Courts... Then in En Re Bonilla 424 S. 1 W 3d 538,532 (CCA 2013) prison regulations must not prohibit prisoners from assisting each other with habers corps applications 3 other legal matters because "yall-house lawyers" serve a role in assisting indigent prisoners who are unable to afford counsels "Unable with reasonable adequacy to prepare their petitions"Challensins their conf inement.

*11 IV.

The law library at the French M. Robertson Unit is scheduled to be open Mon.-Fri from May- 5 pm 2 on Saturdays as needed. The session times are from: 4 a-6 a, 7 a-9 a, 9 a-11 a, 129 p-29 p, 32-49. Well the 9 a-11 a, the 2949 are not adequate sessions because count generally doesn't clear till about 9:15 a on a general basis so you don't make it to the law library till about 9999. So, at minimum you are being deprived of 30 mins of the same goes for the 299 session. I'm requesting the law library logs as discovery for the last 6 months to prove my point, So, if you get either one of those sessions you aren't getting your minimum of 10 hrs/week of law library access. Then the law library is not adequate because it has outdated books that are even stamped outdated. Namely the Texas Digest, which is the way for us to look up of find the latest Texas Cases. Then the Federal Reporter is supposed to go back 25 yrs. However, it only goes back 22 yrs (Fed 20-716). This is all according to 8p 03.81 based. April 29, 2015, Then the law library has a Capacity of 4 b, over 80 w is located in the general library. However, I've "never" seen them use the general library in the 8 yrs I've been on this Unit. See, the changes that I'd like for the Unit Access to Court Supervisor has done by changing the extra time from 2 hrs to 30 mins of the 2 hr legal visit/same session to 20 mins are not legitimate. I'm being deprived of the meaningful, Adequate, timely use of the law library

*12 because I am indigent in need of the assistance of a "Jailhouse" lawyer. See, this very court regarded my case back to the trial court (wR-71,460-04) on 1-14-15, you gave the trial court 60 days to respond. Well I spoke to Lib III Baker on several occasions on getting a tre time for a Sane Session visit so I could preparp a formulate a response he denied it. I asked him why she told me that he didn't have to. I told him that he wasn't following ATC-050 that he was misconstruing that policy to justify his new rules. So, I filed a grievance regarding this issue. The filed March 3, 2015 the 2nd one was filed on April 6, 2015, the 4 is 2015125255, 5ep, the 2 hrs for legal visits/sane session visits, 2 hrs have been in place at a minimum of 16 yrs according to offender Russell Reger TDC # 747783, Lib III Baker is trying to dis course us from going to the law library, retaliate against us for using the grievance system. The unit for my building is constantly going on lock down where I don't have the much need access to the law library so, I can discuss my case with a "Jailhouse" lawyer, formulate a proper response to the state's findings of facts as well as a response if this Court grant's or denies my see, Lib III Baker knows that Russell Reger is considered to be a writ writer, Jail house lawyer, tries to limit my access to him. So, after noting that "historically there has been a bias against inmates, considered to be writ writers" by the TDC-ID the magistrate Judge concluded that this bias "restricted at least as a practical matter an in mates access to the