regulations may limit the time, places, and manner in which inmates may engage in legal research. See Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1, 7 (3d Cir. 1970). Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 561 F.2d 411 (1st Cir. 1977), upheld the district judge's order requiring that prisoners in protective custody be granted more library time.

Stevenson v. Reed, 530 F.2d 1207, 1208 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 944, 97 S.Ct. 365, 50 L. Ed. 2d 315 (1977) held that since the inmates had access to an adequate law library and inmate writ writers, due process did not require that the state provide legal counsel. Woods v. Daggett, 541 F.2d 237 (10th Cir. 1976) found that since the state furnished a substantial law library to the inmates, regulations prohibiting inmates from receiving law books other than those sent from the original source did not deprive plaintiff of access to legal materials. 173 In Glasshofer v. Sennett, 444 F.2d 106 (3d Cir. 1971), where the plaintiff had not complained that he had been denied access to the prison library, the court held that a prisoner did not have a right to compile his own individual law library.

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1977) held: "[T]he 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." 430 U.S. at 828, 97 S.Ct. at 1498, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 83. The Court emphasized that while law libraries were one constitutionally acceptable method to assure meaningful access to the courts, other methods were not foreclosed:

Among the alternatives are the training of inmates as paralegal assistants to work under lawyers' supervision, the use of paraprofessionals and law students, either as volunteers or in formal

clinical programs, the organization

173. Since the plaintiff was a federal prisoner, the case was decided under the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

of volunteer attorneys through bar associations or other groups, the hiring of lawyers on a part-time consultant basis, and the use of full-time staff attorneys, working either in new prison legal assistance organizations or as part of public defender or legal services officers.. Independent legal

advisors can mediate or resolve administratively many prisoner complaints that would otherwise burden the courts, and can convince inmates that other grievances against the prison or the legal system are ill-founded, thereby facilitating rehabilitation by assuring the inmate that he has not been treated

430 U.S. at 831-32, 97 S. Ct. at 1499-1500, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 84-85.

United States v. West, 557 F.2d 151 (8th Cir. 1977) found that the defendant, who was charged with bank robbery and who elected to proceed pro se, was not denied access to the courts by the denial of his request to be taken to a law library since an attorney had been appointed to assist him. The attorney visited him on separate occasions, made himself available for research, and provided him with copies of two cases he had requested.

Wilson v. Zarhadnick, 534 F.2d 55 (5th Cir. 1976), decided prior to Bounds, held that the state is not under a constitutional obligation to furnish an inmate with legal research material where he has adequate financial resources with which to employ counsel of his own choice.

Wolfish v. Levi, 573 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1978) stated: "[W]e can perceive no constitutional right to a typewriter as an incident to the right of access to the courts." 573 F.2d at 132.

Corpus v. Estelle, 551 F.2d 68 (5th Cir. 1977) upheld the district court's finding "that reasonable access to the courts must include access in general

The

civil legal matters including but not limited to divorce and small civil claims." 551 F.2d at 70. findings and conclusions of the district court that there was no reasonable alternative to inmate mutual assistance were not clearly erroneous and the order enjoining the director of the department of corrections from "maintaining or enforcing any rule or practice prohibiting prisoners . . from giving or receiving legal assistance with regard to civil rights matters" was affirmed. 551 F.2d at 69.

Prison officials may not refuse to notarize or mail legal papers on the basis that the form used by the prisoner was improper. Bryan v. Werner, 516 F.2d 233 (3d Cir. 1975). In Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975), the district court was required to hear on the merits plaintiff's claim that he was denied access to the courts. He claimed that legal materials were confiscated and writing supplies were not available. Since the defendant replied that inmates were allowed to use their own writing materials and that they were also given any materials they needed, there was a genuine issue of material fact on these points. 509 F.2d at 1407. The district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment was vacated as to plaintiff's claim that he was denied the use of legal and writing materials.

Plaintiff's allegation that he had been placed in solitary confinement as a form of harassment for filing a lawsuit, was held to state a cause of action in Mawhinney v. Henderson, 542 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1976).

A threat to withhold money if a lawsuit was instituted stated a cause of action in Silver v. Cormier, 529 F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 1976), a non-prisoner case. The court stated:

A public official's threats to a
citizen to withhold monies due and
owing, should legal proceedings on
an independent matter be instituted,
burdens or chills constitutional
rights of access to the courts.
this is true although the threat is
not actually effective. For this
reason the trial court did not err
in refusing to grant defendant's
motion for dismissal.

529 F.2d at 163.

And

In Navarette v. Enomoto, 536 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1976), rev'd on other grounds, Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 98 S. Ct. 855, 55 L. Ed. 2d 24 (1978), allegations that the plaintiff was removed as prison librarian and that a law student visitation program was terminated solely to punish his legal activities was found to state a cause of action based on interference with plaintiff's right of access to the courts.

Russell v. Oliver, 552 F.2d 115 (4th Cir. 1977) held that the district court had improperly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment where the plaintiff alleged that his mail was delayed, that he was excluded from participation in work release and other rehabilitative programs, that he was denied a furlough, and that he was denied a visit because of his lawsuits in federal court. The district court dismissed each complaint on the grounds that the defendants had either presented an acceptable reason for their conduct or that each incident by itself did not amount to a denial of a constitutional right. appeal, the court stated:

The district court erred, however, in considering each allegation independently of the others. A liberal construction of Russell's pro se complaint requires that the judge view all of these allegations not as isolated incidents, but rather as a unit. [T]he

district court should have granted Russell an evidentiary hearing on his allegation that he was harassed because of the suits that he had filed.

552 F.2d at 116.

On

In Christman v. Skinner, 468 F.2d 723, 725 (2d Cir. 1972), it was proper to dismiss plaintiff's claim that he had been punished by placement in isolation for three days for circulating a memorandum to other inmates informing them of his commencement of an action in the state courts to enjoin defendants from cutting the facial hair of inmates awaiting trial. Since plaintiff had alleged that he was punished for circulating the memorandum, and not for instituting the state court action, the case did not present a question of

discriminatory treatment as a result of his petitioning the state court: "Instead, defendants' actions fall within the wide discretion that courts have traditionally conceded to prison officials in matters of prison discipline and security." 468 F.2d at 725. In his dissent, Judge Feinberg stated:

In my view, Christman's first cause of action fairly alleges harassment, by means of two separate instances of extraordinary confinement, in order to intimidate him prior to contemplated court action and to punish him for pursing efforts to obtain judicial relief. The complaint does, to be sure, allude to the memorandum to inmates as well as to violation of appellant's first amendment rights of free speech and association. But it also alleges retaliation for Christman's exercise of his right to petition the government for a redress of grievances-an allegation which, on the facts of this case, can only refer to his state court suit to enjoin cutting of the facial hair of pre-trial detainees. Construing the complaint liberally, as we must on a motion to dismiss, I would hold that the first cause of action presents the substantial federal question of interference with prisoner access to the courts.

468 F.2d at 727.

The plaintiff in Knell v. Bensinger, 522 F.2d 720 (7th Cir. 1975) had been denied mailing privileges, access to legal counsel or materials, and habeas corpus forms during his fifteen days in isolation for having written a letter to an unauthorized person and smuggling the letter out of the prison. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's finding that the defendants had sustained their burden of establishing both subjective and objective good faith, 522: F.2d at 725, and applying the standard set forth in Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 S.Ct. 992, 43 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1975).