42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Denial Of Access To Courts

11 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Meral Smith v. Evans
  853 F.2d 155· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·cited 38×
  An untimely Rule 59(e) motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Henriksen v. The Honorable Judge Vernon G. Bentley
  644 F.2d 852· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 26×
  A judge is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a clerk's actions under respondeat superior, but a clerk's claim for denial of access to courts requires further factual development regarding qualified immunity.
• Royce Calvin Sands, II v. Lewis
  886 F.2d 1166· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim of denial of access to courts requires alleging an "actual injury" unless the claim concerns the adequacy of law libraries or legal assistance. The court also held that a prison's rule limiting typewriter memory capability does not violate a
• Ganey v. Edwards
  759 F.2d 337· 4th Cir.· 1985-04-02 ·cited 18×
  A plaintiff who proves a deprivation of a constitutional right is entitled to nominal damages, even without proof of actual injury.
• Gaut v. Sunn
  792 F.2d 874· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that allegations of severe beatings and threats to deter legal action, taken as true, state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Goff v. Jones
  500 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 12×
  A pro se prisoner's complaint alleging denial of access to legal research materials states a claim for relief, even if counsel was appointed.
• Diamontiney v. Borg
  918 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction or in denying the motion for contempt, as reasonable steps were taken to ensure the inmate's access to the courts.
• Kincaid v. Kendall I. Vail
  969 F.2d 594· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the clerk of court was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken at the direction of a judge, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding a constitutional violation.
• Carver v. Bunch
  946 F.2d 451· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaint solely for failure to respond to a motion to dismiss, without considering the merits or the specific requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
• Gaut v. Sunn
  810 F.2d 923· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 3×
  Prison beatings that shock the conscience are actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but a mere threat of bodily harm, even to deter legal action, is not.
• Son v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-05
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state an access to courts claim and that claims based on 2011 actions were time-barred, but the equal protection claim could proceed.