Lee v. Moody

E.D. Arkansas

Lee v. Moody

DecidedJanuary 31, 2024

Docket2:22-cv-00023

StatusUnknown

This text of Lee v. Moody (Lee v. Moody) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee v. Moody, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION

TERRY LEE PLAINTIFF ADC #120960

v. No: 2:22-cv-00023 JM-PSH

TERRI N. MOODY, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Terry Lee seeking to hold the warden of the Maximum Security Unit in contempt (Doc. No. 95). His motion is DENIED for the reasons explained below. The warden is not a party in this case and has not violated a court order. The Court directed that an Order be sent to the warden so that the warden could assist Lee in receiving the legal supplies he needed to prosecute this case. See Doc. No. 78. The Court did not order the warden to take any specific action. Id. Because Lee continued to complain about not receiving legal supplies, the Court made inquiries and was informed by Arkansas Division of Correction legal staff that Lee had received legal supplies on certain dates and should receive more soon. See Doc. No. 91. The Court gave Lee more time to file his response to a pending motion for summary judgment, and his responsive pleadings have since been filed. See Doc. Nos. 92-94. The Court does not interject itself into prison administration; the steps it has taken so far were taken to move this matter along and is the most that can be done in this lawsuit. If Lee believes his right to prosecute this case has been interfered with to his detriment, he may file a separate lawsuit against the appropriate defendants raising an access-to-courts claim once he has exhausted his available administrative remedies. Lee should note that he is required to show actual injury to state an access- to-courts claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (to succeed on a claim for a violation of the right of meaningful access to the courts, a prisoner must establish that he or she suffered an actual injury or prejudice caused by the denial of

access to legal materials, counsel, or the courts). IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2024. oie

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION

TERRY LEE PLAINTIFF ADC #120960

v. No: 2:22-cv-00023 JM-PSH

TERRI N. MOODY, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Terry Lee seeking to hold the warden of the Maximum Security Unit in contempt (Doc. No. 95). His motion is DENIED for the reasons explained below. The warden is not a party in this case and has not violated a court order. The Court directed that an Order be sent to the warden so that the warden could assist Lee in receiving the legal supplies he needed to prosecute this case. See Doc. No. 78. The Court did not order the warden to take any specific action. Id. Because Lee continued to complain about not receiving legal supplies, the Court made inquiries and was informed by Arkansas Division of Correction legal staff that Lee had received legal supplies on certain dates and should receive more soon. See Doc. No. 91. The Court gave Lee more time to file his response to a pending motion for summary judgment, and his responsive pleadings have since been filed. See Doc. Nos. 92-94. The Court does not interject itself into prison administration; the steps it has taken so far were taken to move this matter along and is the most that can be done in this lawsuit. If Lee believes his right to prosecute this case has been interfered with to his detriment, he may file a separate lawsuit against the appropriate defendants raising an access-to-courts claim once he has exhausted his available administrative remedies. Lee should note that he is required to show actual injury to state an access- to-courts claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (to succeed on a claim for a violation of the right of meaningful access to the courts, a prisoner must establish that he or she suffered an actual injury or prejudice caused by the denial of

access to legal materials, counsel, or the courts). IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2024. oie

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lee v. Moody, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-moody-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack