In re Ashford

Filed 1/17/07  In re Ashford CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

            APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Raymond A.

Cota, Judge.  Affirmed in part and reversed in part with instructions.

            Acting warden of Calipatria State Prison (CSP), Stuart Ryan (Warden), appeals an order granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Edward Dwayne Ashford, an inmate at CSP, seeking a " right to access legal materials as interstate compact prisoner."   The superior court ordered that CSP provide him the materials sought, including free internet resources such as < http.://www.findlaw.com/> .  Warden contends the court exceeded its jurisdiction in crafting such an order because Ashford's writ petition did not specifically seek relief in the form of internet access, and CSP did not have an opportunity to brief this issue.  We affirm in part and reverse in part with instructions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

            Ashford alleged in his writ petition that in 1986, he was convicted of a crime, and a judge of the superior court for the District of Columbia sentenced him to prison.  While jailed in a Washington, D.C. detention facility during pretrial, he was attacked by gang members.  The corrections officials ordered that Ashford and one of his attackers, Kelvin Smith, be kept separated.  In 1991, while Ashford was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary in Beaumont Texas, he was attacked by persons who stated they were acting on orders from Smith, who also was housed there.  Pursuant to an interstate compact, the Federal Bureau of Prisons transferred Ashford to CSP.  Ashford has an action pending in the District of Columbia regarding the assault he experienced in the detention facility. 

            On August 1, 2005, Ashford filed a writ petition seeking access to legal materials to prosecute his lawsuit against the District of Columbia because he had " no available D.C. related statutes and case citations available [sic] to file any contemplated collateral attacks of his convictions and sentences."   Among other relief, he requested that " [California Department of Corrections] officials within 30 days must make adequate, effective, and meaningful arrangements for [him] to have adequate, effective, and meaningful access to [District of Columbia] statutes and case citations."   On August 29, 2005, the trial court issued an order to show cause why Ashford's writ petition should not be granted.

            On October 3, 2005, Warden submitted a return and argued Ashford had meaningful access to the courts to satisfy minimal constitutional standards.  Specifically, CSP maintains legal resources mandated by Gilmore v. Lynch (1970) 319 F.Supp.105; several secondary sources related to inmate/parolee administrative appeals; and federal cases and resources through the state's circulating law library.  Included in the return was a " list of federal legal source of information available in the Calipatria law libraries."   However, the list does not include legal authority applicable to the District of Columbia.

            On December 12, 2005, Ashford filed a " Denial and Exception to the Return to Order to Show Cause."   On January 9, 2006, the trial court granted the writ petition, stating, " Good cause having been shown, [Warden] is ordered to provide [Ashford] with meaningful access to statutory and case law, Rules of Court and Shepard Citations of the District of Columbia, by any reasonable means, within thirty (30) days, including but not limited to free internet resources such as [< http.://www.findlaw.com/> ]."  

            On February 10, 2006, Warden filed in the trial court a " request for reconsideration, or in the alternative, request to submit supplemental briefing re: internet access."   Warden contended the court's " remedy reache[d] beyond the issues raised in the petition;" was contrary to state regulations governing inmate computer usage; and the prison's compliance with the order would affect the security of the entire prison system in California and the safety of the public.  Warden stated, " Should the Court request supplemental briefing, respondent will submit additional evidence, such as declarations from CSP officials, demonstrating that state prisons do not allow inmates to have internet access for security reasons and, more specifically, that CSP does not currently have the capability to provide internet access to petitioner."

            On February 28, 2005, the trial court issued a stay, until March 9, 2006, of the order granting the writ petition.  On March 10, 2006, Warden, filed this appeal, and raised the same contentions set forth in the request for reconsideration.

DISCUSSION

I

            Warden does not dispute that a prisoner has a constitutional right to engage in legal research to the extent necessary to ensure access to the courts, and that prisons must provide inmates with a library that meets minimum constitutional standards.  (Lewis v. Casey (1996) 518 U.S. 343, 346.)  Rather, Warden challenges the portion of the trial court's order requiring CSP to provide Ashford internet resources to conduct his legal research.  Warden argues, " Had internet access been alleged in Ashford's request for habeas corpus relief, or at least referenced in the superior court's order to show cause, [Warden] could have addressed the issue in the return to the order to show cause.  [Warden] could have advised the superior court of the state regulations and prison policies regarding computer usage, and addressed the question of whether internet resources were necessary to satisfy constitutional standards regarding access to the courts."

            " Because a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks to collaterally attack a presumptively final criminal judgment, the petitioner bears a heavy burden initially to plead sufficient grounds for relief, and then later to prove them."   (People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal.4th 464, 474.)  " When an order to show cause does issue, it is limited to the claims raised in the petition and the factual bases for those claims alleged in the petition." (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 781, fn. 16.)  The tools the prison is required to provide are " those that the inmates need in order to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their confinement."   (Lewis v. Case, supra, 518 U.S. at p. 355.)  A prison may validly implement regulation impinging on inmates' constitutional rights if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.  (Id., at p. 359.)

            Ashford's petition did not seek internet access for his legal research; accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in granting such access without providing Warden an opportunity to address the issue, especially after respondent requested an opportunity for supplemental briefing.         

DISPOSITION

            The portion of the trial court's order granting Ashford access to internet resources is reversed.  In all other respects the order is affirmed.  The trial court is directed to prepare a new order consistent with this opinion.

O'ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

                McDONALD, Acting P. J.

                                            IRION, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.