Lewis v. Casey
- Decided
- June 24, 1996
- Docket
- 94-1511
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 7,493 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the Constitution does not require the State to “enable the prisoner to discover grievances, and to litigate effectively once in court” — Silva v. Di Vittorio (2011)
- holding that system-wide relief was inappropriately tailored to protect against violations of one inmate’s rights — Thomas v. Bryant (2010)
- holding that inmate bringing a forward-looking claim must point to a “nonfrivolous legal claim [that was] being frustrated [or] impeded” — Broudy, Alice P. v. Mather, Susan H. (2006)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*346] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U. S. 817 (1977), we held that “the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Id., at 828. Petitioners, who are officials of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC), contend that the United States District Court for the District of Arizona erred in finding them in violation of Bounds, and that the court’s remedial order exceeded lawful authority.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.