green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
17.6 score
“prisoners (including pretrial detainees) have a constitutional right of 10 access to the courts under the first amendment.”
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PC) Harper v. Robinson
prisoners (including pretrial detainees) have a constitutional right of 10 access to the courts under the first amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Felice Lazae Martin, et al. v. Michael Castillo, et al.
When asserting a backward-looking claim, a 27 plaintiff must show “1) the loss of a ‘non-frivolous’ or ‘arguable’ underlying claim; 2) the official 1 otherwise available in a future suit.” Israel, 2023 WL 2239336 , at *3 (citing Phillips v. Hust, 477 2 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007), vacated on other grounds by Hust v. Phillips, 555 U.S. 1150 3 (2009)). 4 In support of a claimed First Amendment violation here, Plaintiffs plead in conclusory 5 fashion “[c]oercion to forfeit legal claims through property hostage-taking” and use of “false police 6 reports.” (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 15…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Felice Lazae Martin, et al. v. Michael Castillo, et al.
When asserting a backward-looking claim, a 17 plaintiff must show “1) the loss of a ‘non-frivolous’ or ‘arguable’ underlying claim; 2) the official 18 acts frustrating the litigation; and 3) a remedy that may be awarded as recompense but that is not 19 otherwise available in a future suit.” Israel, 2023 WL 2239336 , at *3 (citing Phillips v. Hust, 477 20 F.3d 1070 , 1076 (9th Cir. 2007), vacated on other grounds by Hust v. Phillips, 555 U.S. 1150 21 (2009)). 22 In support of a claimed First Amendment violation here, Plaintiffs plead in conclusory 23 fashion “[c]oercion to forfeit…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall 353631 v. Arizona State Prison
Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 and n.3. 6 Moreover, where a prisoner is asserting a backward-looking denial of access 7 claim—seeking a remedy for a lost opportunity to present a legal claim— he must show, 8 among other things, “the loss of a ‘nonfrivolous’ or ‘arguable’ underlying claim.” Phillips 9 v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007), vacated on other grounds, 555 U.S. 1150 10 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall 353631 v. Arizona State Prison
“Impairment of 24 any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) 25 consequences of conviction and incarceration.” Id. (emphasis in original). 26 Moreover, where a prisoner is asserting a backward-looking denial of access 27 claim—seeking a remedy for a lost opportunity to present a legal claim—he must show, 28 among other things, “the loss of a ‘nonfrivolous’ or ‘arguable’ underlying claim.” Phillips 1 v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007), vacated on other grounds, 555 U.S. 1150 2 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Velasco v. Balaam
When a prisoner asserts a backward-looking claim, “he must show: 17 (1) the loss of a ‘non-frivolous’ or ‘arguable’ underlying claim; (2) the official acts frustrating the 18 litigation; and (3) a remedy that may be awarded as recompense but that is not otherwise 19 available in a future suit.” Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 Christopher, 536 U.S. at 413-14 ), vacated on other grounds by Hust v. Phillips, 555 U.S. 1150 21 (2009). 22 Here, Plaintiff has alleged a colorable claim for denial of access to the courts against 23 Warden Oliver.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Penton v. Hubard
As noted above, the undersigned has 15 discretion over which prong to address first, in light of the particular circumstances of each case. 16 See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. 17 Discussion 18 Plaintiff contends that defendant Lynch is not entitled to qualified immunity because it 19 was clearly established that an inmate has the right to be free from retaliation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Gann v. Corral
Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 6 Christopher, 536 U.S. at 413-14 ) (overruled on other grounds, Hust v. Phillips, 555 U.S. 1150 7 (2009) (reversed and remanded Phillips v. Hust, on qualified immunity grounds without change 8 or discussion of elements for an access to court claim)). 9 Finally, "[a]lthough prison officials may not obstruct a prisoner's access to the courts by 10 unreasonably blocking his access to a law library, prison officials may place reasonable 11 limitations on library access in the interest of the secure and orderly operation of the institut…
cited
Cited "see"
Michael Hernandez Gonzalez v. Wise, et al.
See Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070 , 1075-76 9 | (9th Cir. 2007), vacated on other grounds, 555 U.S. 1150 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
Huber v. Anderson
See Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007) (“We think it equally apparent that where the suit underlying an access to the courts claim was to be brought in a court having discretionary jurisdiction, the plaintiff need not establish, ex post, that the court would have exercised its discretion and accepted the case.”), judgment vacated on other grounds, 555 U.S. 1150 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gregory Jones v. Theresa Schroder
See Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth elements of an access-to-courts claim relating to a lost opportunity to present a legal claim), vacated on other grounds, 555 U.S. 1150 , 129 S.Ct. 1036 , 173 L.Ed.2d 466 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
Susan Polk v. James Cavin
See Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2007) (requiring that a defendant must have “proximately caused” plaintiffs loss of the opportunity to litigate his or her claim), vacated on.other grounds, 555 U.S. 1150 , 129 S.Ct. 1036 , 173 L.Ed.2d 466 (2009).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Monical v. Winters
Id.; see also id., Ex. 2, ECF 304 (joint motion to remand).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Freeman v. Ducey
To the extent the proposed Supplemental Complaint 12 requests monetary damages, it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, as it 13 fails to allege actual injury from the temporary confiscation of Plaintiff’s records.1 14 To prevail on an access-to-courts claim, a plaintiff must, among other elements, 15 establish “actual injury” by demonstrating that the defendants’ acts or omissions hindered 16 the plaintiff’s “efforts to pursue a [nonfrivolous] legal claim.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 17 343, 351 (1996); see also Phillips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 200…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arthur R. HARRISON
v.
UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 08-6365.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 21, 2009.
555 U.S. 1150
2009 U.S. LEXIS 862
Cited by 41 opinions | Published
Citer courts: E.D. California (1)
Petition for rehearing denied.