Bounds v. Smith - case summary and case brief

Judicial History: North Carolina inmates sued in federal district court. The inmates alleged that the state’s failure to accommodate them with legal investigation facilities revoked them access to the courts in infringement of the fourteenth amendment. The district courts admitted the inmates’ motion for summary judgment. This then ordered the state to set up a legal investigation assistance system. In addition, a library program was recommended by North Carolina and accepted by the court. The court holding granted the states to not have to provide legal advisors. The court of appeals affirmed, the state asked for assessment, and the Supreme Court was allowed certiorari.

Details: As the prisoners filed the claims in the District Court, there was only 1 poorly constructed state prison library. Meanwhile, no other legal assistance was accessible to the inmates who hoped to program and file habeas corpus and civil rights actions.

Problem: Are states obligated to defend the rights of prisoners to have access to the courts by giving law libraries or any type of legal assistance?

Holding: States want to administer prisoners with a enough legal service. For example, legally qualified persons.

Reasoning: All prisoners have a constitutional correct of entry to the courts. This entry wants to be fair, sufficient, and relevant to quit claim infringements of essential constitutional rights.

It is crucial that prisoners file correct claims in order, thinking about the court can pass on the complainant’s sooner. This grants in forma pauperis and can decline the case if it seems to be pointless. In addition, with out a library, a prisoner could not negate the state’s arguments.

The appropriate to legal help is vital here, due to civil rights and habeas corpus actions placed on constitutional negligence. They have not disputed past arguments.

Selection: Affirmed.

Concurring Opinion-Powell: The Court’s holding forms no indication to the outlook of the prisoner’s claims in the state and federal court.

Dissenting Opinion-Burger: Seeing that there is no federal constitution appropriate to intrude state convictions secondary in federal court. The federal court may possibly not want for states to fund prison law libraries.

Dissenting Opinion-Stewart: Critical admittance to courts is uncommon by constructing law libraries for prisoners.

Dissenting Opinion-Rehnquist: There is no structure written to access the federal court to challenge state court convictions. The prisoners had forthright appeal more than the state court system.