Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

James Adolphis Boyd v. Tana Wood

James Adolphis Boyd v. Tana Wood, 52 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 1995)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1995-04-21
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that sending state authorities maintain responsibility for providing state legal materials to their prisoners incarcerated in out-of-state facilities

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed James Adolphis Boyd v. Tana Wood. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
8 opinions
BOYD v. WOOD,52 F.3d 820(9th Cir. 1995)
JAMES ADOLPHIS BOYD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. TANA WOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 94-35147.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 1995.
Decided April 21, 1995.
James Adolphis Boyd, pro per, Walla Walla, Washington, for plaintiff-appellant.

No appearance for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
Before: WRIGHT, POOLE, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
[1] OPINIONfn*
PER CURIAM:
[2] James Adolphis Boyd, a Kansas state prisoner housed at the Washington State Penitentiary pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC), appeals pro se the district court's28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his42 U.S.C. § 1983action alleging that Washington state prison authorities have denied him meaningful access to the courts because the law library at the Washington State Penitentiary contained inadequate Kansas state law materials. We have jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's determination that a claim is frivolous under § 1915(d),Denton v. Hernandez,504 U.S. 25, ___,112 S.Ct. 1728,1734,118 L.Ed.2d 340(1992), and we affirm.

[3] Here, we need only determine whether the Washington officials had the responsibility to assure Boyd reasonable access to the Kansas legal materials he needed for his allegedly pending litigation in the Kansas courts. This presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit. The Tenth Circuit has held that sending state authorities maintain the responsibility of providing required state legal materials for their prisoners incarcerated in sister state facilities.Clayton v. Tansy,26 F.3d 980,982(10th Cir. 1993);see also Rich v. Zitnay,644 F.2d 41,43(1st Cir. 1981) (state authorities housing state prisoner in federal prison in sister statePage 821remained responsible for providing prisoner with access to state legal materials). We agree with the Tenth Circuit, and hold that sending state authorities maintain responsibility for providing state legal materials to their prisoners incarcerated in out-of-state facilities.

[4] Therefore, because Kansas state authorities, not Washington state authorities acting under the ICC, were responsible for providing required Kansas legal materials, the district court properly determined that Boyd named the wrong defendant. Furthermore, because a Kansas official would not have been subject to service of process in the state of Washington, any amendment of the complaint would have been futile.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.4(k). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Boyd's action with prejudice.

[5]AFFIRMED.
  1. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P.34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Boyd's request for oral argument is denied. ↩