Unpublished Disposition, 842 F.2d 335 (9th Cir. 1987)

MEMORANDUM^** 

David Allen Mann appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. We affirm.

Mann, an inmate legal assistant and former inmate law library clerk, filed this section 1983 action on May 12, 1986, alleging that a Department of Corrections policy, DMO 86-13, was unconstitutional. The policy, dealing with inmate access to legal assistance, requires that " [i]nmates who desire to function as inmate legal assistants shall apply to the Warden, in writing," and requires inmate legal assistants to "provide the Warden with a list of those inmates whom they assist, including names, numbers, and housing locations." The policy further provides that " [i]nmate law library clerks shall provide assistance to other inmates in the use of the law library facilities, but shall not provide legal assistance or advice." Mann contends that these provisions violate the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

On May 7, 1987, the district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation, granting summary judgment to the Director as to the claims before us. The court denied summary judgment as to Mann's claims of retaliation for exercising his right of access to the courts, which is the subject of a separate proceeding. Mann timely appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The Supreme Court has held that "the State may impose reasonable restrictions and restraints upon the acknowledged propensity of prisoners to abuse both the giving and the seeking of assistance in the preparation of applications for relief." Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 490, 89 S. Ct. 747, 751 (1969). The Supreme Court also observed that " [i]t is indisputable that prison 'writ writers' like petitioner are sometimes a menace to prison discipline," id. at 488, 89 S. Ct. at 750. Following Avery, we must hold that requiring inmates to apply to the warden before acting as inmate legal assistants is a reasonable restriction. See also Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178, 201 (2d Cir. 1971) (en banc), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1049, 92 S. Ct. 719 (1972) (accord).

Mann next argues that requiring inmate legal assistants to provide the warden with a list of the inmates assisted is unreasonable. " [W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner v. Safley, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 2261 (1987). In satisfying this "reasonable relationship" test, a "valid, rational connection" must exist between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest. Id. at 2262.

Requiring inmate legal assistants to provide a list of the prisoners assisted has a basis in prison security. Thus, a "valid, rational connection" exists.

Mann's final argument concerns the new policy's prohibition against inmate law library clerks providing legal assistance or advice while on duty. The Seventh Circuit has stated the obvious proposition that "an inmate has no right to be a writ writer during times when he is assigned to perform other work," Buise v. Hudkins, 584 F.2d 223, 231 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 916, 99 S. Ct. 1234 (1979). The Director thus may restrict inmate law library clerks from providing legal assistance.

AFFIRMED.