546 US 9 Kane v Espitia

class="ad-unit">

Case TextPer Curiam

KANE, WARDEN v. GARCIA ESPITIA

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united
states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 04—1538. Decided October 31, 2005

Respondent, a pro se criminal defendant, received no law library access
while in jail before trial and only about four hours of access during trial.
The California courts rejected his claim that such restricted access violated
the Sixth Amendment. The Federal District Court subsequently
denied him habeas relief, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that
his lack of pretrial access to law books violated his constitutional right to
self-representation as established in Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806.

Held: The Ninth Circuit erred in holding, based on Faretta, that a violation
of a law library access right is a basis for federal habeas relief. A
necessary condition for such relief is that the state-court decision be
“contrary to, or involv[e] an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by” this Court. 28 U. S. C.
§ 2254(d)(1). While Faretta establishes a Sixth Amendment right to
self-representation, it does not “clearly establis[h]” a law library access
right.

Certiorari granted; 113 Fed. Appx. 802, reversed and remanded.

Per Curiam.

Respondent Garcia Espitia, a criminal defendant who
chose to proceed pro se, was convicted in California state
court of carjacking and other offenses. He had received no
law library access while in jail before trial–despite his repeated
requests and court orders to the contrary–and only
about four hours of access during trial, just before closing
arguments. (Of course, he had declined, as was his right, to
be represented by a lawyer with unlimited access to legal
materials.) The California courts rejected his argument
that his restricted library access violated his Sixth Amendment
rights. Once his sentence became final, he petitioned
in Federal District Court for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U. S. C. § 2254. The District Court denied relief, but the

Per Curiam

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that
“the lack of any pretrial access to lawbooks violated Espitia’s
constitutional right to represent himself as established by
the Supreme Court in Faretta [v. California, 422 U. S. 806
(1975)].” Garcia Espitia v. Ortiz, 113 Fed. Appx. 802, 804
(2004). The warden’s petition for certiorari and respondent’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are
granted, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is
remanded.

A necessary condition for federal habeas relief here is that
the state court’s decision be “contrary to, or involv[e] an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
§ 2254(d)(1). Neither the opinion below, nor any of the appellate
cases it relies on, identifies a source in our case law
for the law library access right other than Faretta. See id.,
at 804 (relying on Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F. 3d 1015, 1020
(CA9 2000) (quoting Milton v. Morris, 767 F. 2d 1443, 1446
(CA9 1985))); ibid. (“Faretta controls this case”).

The federal appellate courts have split on whether Faretta,
which establishes a Sixth Amendment right to selfrepresentation,
implies a right of the pro se defendant to
have access to a law library. Compare Milton, supra, with
United States v. Smith, 907 F. 2d 42, 45 (CA6 1990) (“[B]y
knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to counsel, the
appellant also relinquished his access to a law library”);
United States ex rel. George v. Lane, 718 F. 2d 226, 231 (CA7
1983) (similar). That question cannot be resolved here, however,
as it is clear that Faretta does not, as § 2254(d)(1)
requires, “clearly establis[h]” the law library access right.
In fact, Faretta says nothing about any specific legal aid that
the State owes a pro se criminal defendant. The Bribiesca
court and the court below therefore erred in holding, based
on Faretta, that a violation of a law library access right is a
basis for federal habeas relief.

Cite as: 546 U. S. 9 (2005)
Per Curiam
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

546 U.S. 9 - Kane v Espitia

546 US 9 Kane v Espitia