Judicial History: North Carolina inmates sued in federal district court. The detainees alleged that the state's failure to provide them with legal research facilities revoked their access to the courts in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district courts granted the inmates' motion for summary judgment. This then directed the state to establish a legal research assistance program. Additionally, a library plan was suggested by North Carolina and accepted by the court. The court ruling allowed states not to have to provide legal counsel. The appeals court affirmed, the State sought review, and certiorari was granted to the Supreme Court. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Facts: When prisoners filed complaints in district court, there was only one poorly constructed state prison library. Meanwhile, no other legal assistance was accessible to detainees hoping to plan and initiate habeas corpus and civil rights actions. Issue: Are states obligated to protect the right of prisoners to have access to courts by providing law libraries or any type of legal assistance? assistance? Detention: States must guarantee prisoners sufficient legal services. For example, legally qualified persons. Reasoning: All prisoners have the constitutional right to access the courts. This voice must be fair, sufficient and relevant to stop violations of fundamental constitutional rights. It is imperative that prisoners submit the correct requests in order, considering that the court may forward the complainant's request first. This grants in forma pauperis and can decline the case if it deems it useless. Furthermore, without a library, an inmate could not deny the state's arguments. The right to counsel is paramount here, due to civil rights and habeas corpus actions alleging constitutional malpractice. They did not dispute the previous arguments. Concurring Opinion-Powell: The Court's ruling provides no indication of the prospect of the prisoner's claims in state and federal court. Dissenting Opinion-Burger: Since there is no federal constitutional right to interfere with secondary state sentences in federal court. The federal court may not want states to fund prison law libraries. Dissenting Opinion-Stewart: Major admission to courts is rare because law libraries are built for prisoners. Please note: this is just an example. Get a customized document from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Dissenting Opinion-Rehnquist: There is no written framework for entering federal court to challenge state court convictions. Prisoners could openly appeal to the state justice system.