In the days leading up to Mr. Rivera’s civil rights trial in which he was representing himself, Mr. Rivera repeatedly asked prison officials for access to electronic legal research material.
But the computers were broken, and Defendants never fixed them. So Mr. Rivera instead asked for print research materials, including the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But the Defendants told him “no,” despite his repeated requests for these legal texts.
In all, despite Mr. Rivera’s multiple requests, he was denied any access to legal research materials before and during his § 1983 trial in federal court, where he was serving as his own counsel. As a result of his inability to research the applicable rules, the judge excluded critical evidence and, without the aid of this evidence, the jury returned a verdict against him.
Mr. Rivera filed a lawsuit against two prison guards and the prison librarian based on the denial of his right of access to the courts because of their total refusal to provide him with any legal research materials.
The defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Rivera’s action, and the district court awarded qualified immunity to all three defendants and dismissed the case.
The district court determined that although the Supreme Court has explained that prisoners have a right to access the courts via law library material, it was not “clearly established” that this right extended to the trial stage of a civil rights case.
We were proud to have represented Mr. Rivera on appeal to the Third Circuit, and to argue his case before that court.
The Third Circuit issued a decision that was unfortunately unhelpful to Mr. Rivera—it granted qualified immunity to the defendants—but clarified the law in a way that will benefit incarcerated plaintiffs going forward. The Court held:
“Precedent forces us to agree with the District Court: existing Supreme Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals law had not clearly established a prisoner’s right to access the courts after he or she filed a complaint. Going forward, however, there should be no doubt that such a right exists. The ability of a prisoner to access basic legal materials in a law library, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the rules of the court in which the prisoner is litigating, does not stop once a prisoner has taken the first step towards the courthouse’s door. Prisoners need to continue to have a right to access the courts after they file their complaints; otherwise, the right is illusory. Under the facts alleged here, the defendants violated this right, even though they may not have been aware at the time that they did so. Thus, while qualified immunity bars Rivera’s claim in this case, it would not bar similarly situated prisoners’ claims in the future.”
This is another example of the perverse effects of the doctrine of qualified immunity, which prevents courts from redressing constitutional wrongs—like this one—the first time it encounters them.