The Carson City Jail lacks a required Law Library and resembles a Russian Gulag.
All inmates are incarcerated with no access to a law library in the Carson City Jail (Detention Center) pursuant to NRS 211.140(b) or lawyer from the Carson City jail thus violating Due Process.
The American Correctional Association (ACA) Adult Local Detention Standards as well ACA’s Core Jail standards as a basis for your policies. Here are the two relevant standards: ACA standard 4-ALDF-6A-03 (Accreditation standards)
“Inmates have access to a law library if there is not adequate free legal assistance to assist them with criminal, civil, and administrative legal matters. Inmates have access to legal materials to facilitate the preparation of documents”
ACA Standard 1-Core-6A-03 (Core Jail Standards)
“Inmates have access to legal materials”
You will want to consider what the courts have said. Take a look at the following:
“Jails and the Constitution: An Overview” NIC publication authored by William Collins available as a download from: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/022570.pdf
Text from page 68:
“Over the years the Supreme Court decided several access to the courts cases involving inmates. The most important came in 1977, when the Court said that prison administrators have the affirmative duty to provide inmates with assistance or resources to allow them to meaningfully exercise their right of access to the courts, Bounds v. Smith. Assistance could take the form of persons trained in the law (such as lawyers, paralegals, or law students), adequate law libraries, or some combination of these.
A 1996 Supreme Court decision dealing with access to the courts reaffirmed the core principle in Bounds, i.e., that the institution has an affirmative duty to provide some form of assistance (libraries or persons trained in the law) sufficient to give inmates the capability of filing non-frivolous lawsuits challenging their sentence or the conditions of their confinement, Lewis v. Casey.”
“The principle from Bounds (and now Lewis) has been extended to jails, although application of the principle may be slightly different in the jail context depending in part on how long inmates remain in the jail. The longer an inmate remains in a jail, the more the right of “access to the courts” places the same demands on the jail as it does on the prison”
The 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. This quote is taken from Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817), the 1977 landmark Supreme Court decision, which led to the establishment of law libraries in most major U.S. prisons.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees state inmates the right to “adequate, effective, and meaningful” access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1495, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977); Green v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 1383, 1389 (10th Cir.1992). We impose “affirmative obligations” on the states to assure all inmates access to the courts and assistance in the preparation and filing of legal papers. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 583 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 101 S.Ct. 1759, 68 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981).
The Supreme Court instructs that states may satisfy this duty “by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828, 97 S.Ct. at 1498. Although this constitutional obligation does not require states to afford inmates unlimited access to a library, Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 358 (10th Cir.1978), and there exists no rigid or static formula to assess whether a prison library’s resources pass constitutional muster, Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir.1991), states must provide inmates with “a reasonably adequate opportunity” to present their legal claims.