United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
November 18, 2016, the Court received for filing the
above-captioned “Emergency Complaint” filed by
Anthony Kelly, an inmate housed at the North Branch
Correctional Institution (“NBCI”). Kelly filed
the Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
seeking damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief. He asks that NBCI Case Management Specialist Jordan
Tichnell be compelled to provide him 120 copies of a
dispositive motion filed in this Court in his prior civil
rights litigation. Kelly claims that on October 30, 2016, he
left a copy work request in Tichnell's mailbox. He
contends that he requires the copies so that he can file a
certiorari petition to the United States Supreme Court from
the judgment of the Court of Appeals. ECF No. 1. Kelly's
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis shall be
granted. His Complaint, however, shall be summarily
extent that Kelly's complaint for injunctive relief may
be construed as a civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, his complaint shall be dismissed.
Prisoners are entitled to ''a reasonably adequate
opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental
constitutional rights to the courts.'' Bounds v.
Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825 (1977); see also Hudspeth
v. Figgins, 584 F.2d 1345, 1347 (4th Cir.
1978). In 1996, the Supreme Court clarified the
Bounds decision by finding that a deprivation of an
inmate's right of access to the courts is actionable, but
only when the inmate is able to demonstrate actual injury
from such deprivation. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 349 (1996). According to the Lewis opinion, the
Constitution does not guarantee inmates the ability to
litigate every imaginable claim they can perceive, only that
they be given the tools necessary ''in order to
attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in
order to challenge the conditions of their
confinement.'' Id. at 355. Simply put, in
order to state a claim for denial of access to the courts, a
prisoner must provide some basis for his allegation that he
has been deprived of meaningful access to the courts.
White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 723 (4th Cir. 1989).
addition, a plaintiff must show actual injury resulting from
the alleged denial of access. Lewis, 518 U.S. at
349. The plaintiff must identify with specificity the actual
injury resulting from the defendants' conduct.
Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1316-17 (4th Cir.
1996). The “ ‘actual injury' that an inmate
must demonstrate is that the alleged shortcomings in the
prison library or legal assistant program have hindered, or
are presently hindering, his efforts to pursue a
non-frivolous legal claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at
343; see also Michau v. Charleston Cnty., S.C., 434
F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006) (in access to court claim,
inmate must allege and show that he or she has suffered an
actual injury or specific harm to his litigation efforts as a
result of the defendant's actions).
has failed to set out a colorable access-to-courts claim. He
does not indicate why and/or how his inability to obtain 120
copies of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary
Judgment filed in Kelly v. Simpson, et al., Civil
Action No. RDB-15-3647 (D. Md.), prevents him from filing a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme
Court. He provides no particulars why he needs
such a large volume of copy work of a filing that has already
been made part of the electronic record. The right of access
to the courts does not include a right to unlimited free
supplies. See Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 359
(10th Cir. 1978); Harrell v. Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059,
1060 (10th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). The Complaint shall be
insofar as Kelly seeks injunctive relief to compel action on
the part of state employees, his cause action may be
alternately construed as a Petition for Mandamus relief. This
remedy is only used in extraordinary circumstances. See
Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402
(1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826
(4th Cir. 1987). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361
confers original jurisdiction on the United States District
Courts “of any action in the nature of mandamus to
compel an officer or employee of the United States or any
agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the
plaintiff.” Thus, a federal court may only issue a writ
of mandamus against an employee or official of the United
States and, even then, may only command that employee or
official “to perform a mandatory or ministerial duty,
rather than one that is purely discretionary.”
Ocean Breeze Festival Park v. Reich, 853 F.Supp.
906, 915 (E.D. Va. 1994), affirmed by Virginia Beach
Policeman's Benevolent Association v. Reich, 96 F.3d
1440 (4th Cir. 1996). A federal court does not have
jurisdiction over state entities or employees in an action
for writ of mandamus. See Gurley v. Superior Court of
Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th
Cir. 1969); see also AT & T Wireless PCS v.
Winston-Salem Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 172 F.3d 307,
312 n. 3 (4th Cir. 1999). Consequently, this Court
has no authority to provide the relief sought by Kelly. A
separate Order follows dismissing the cause of action.
 The docket shows that on November 21,
2016, this Court's judgment was affirmed by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See Kelly
v. Simpson, et al., Civil Action No. RDB-15-3647 (D.
Md.) at ECF No. 24.
 Kelly is advised, however, that a
§ 1983 lawsuit may not be filed against the State of
Maryland. Neither a state nor an agency of a state is a
''person'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65 & 70-71 (1989). Moreover,
the State of Maryland is immune from liability under the
Eleventh Amendment from a § 1983 suit in federal court
without regard to the nature of the relief sought. See
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465
U.S. 89, 101-01 (1984); C.H. v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198,
201 (3rd Cir. 2000).
Further, Kelly has failed to show that he has a
qualifying disability under the ADA. To state a claim for
violation of the ADA, the plaintiff must show that (s)he (1)
has a disability, (2) is otherwise qualified to participate
in a program, and (3) was denied the benefits of the program
or discriminated against because of the disability. See
Millington v. Temple Univ. Sch. Of Dentistry, 261 Fed.
App. 363, 365 (3rd Cir. 2008). A physical condition may
qualify as a ''disability'' within the
meaning of the ADA and RHA because it ''substantially
limits one or more ... major life activities.'' 42
U.S.C. § 12102; 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B). Under the
law in this circuit, to establish that he is disabled under
the ADA, Plaintiff must prove that: he has a physical or
mental impairment; that this impairment implicates at least
one major life activity; and the limitation is substantial.
See Heiko v. Columbo Savings Bank, F.S.B., 434 F.3d
249, 254 (4th Cir. 2006). Consequently, should ...