USA v. Burk

United States v. Burk 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00117-JMK
Order Denying Request for Injunctive Relief 	Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHNNYLEE PRESTON BURK,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cr-00117-JMK
ORDER DENYING
REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
Before the Court at Dockets 312 and 319 are Defendant Johnnylee Preston
“Burk’s Request for Injunction for Law Library” and “Supplemental Request for an
Injunction” (the “Motions”), respectively. 	Mr. Burk requests that this Court “issue an
injunction allowing him to access the inmate law library at night time. . . .”1 No response
from the Government is necessary.
Mr. Burk’s Motions allege that he is currently able to access a law library
while incarcerated, but that his “ability to [] access the computer to research the law as
needed,” and “use the type-a-writer to type motions” is restricted.2 Mr. Burk alleges he is
“overwhelmed with legal actions and currently has approximately 9 or 10 separate matters
1 Docket 312 at 1.
2 Id. at 2.
Case 3:19-cr-00117-SLG-MMS Document 379 Filed 04/14/22 Page 1 of 4

United States v. Burk 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00117-JMK
Order Denying Request for Injunctive Relief 	Page 2
he is litigating as a pro se litigant[.]”3 After an unsuccessful internal request to his facility,
Mr. Burk requested that the Court order the State of Alaska Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) to allow him to access the law library outside of its normal hours of operation.4
The Court must deny his request.
In Kane v. Garcia Espitia,5 	the Supreme Court held that the failure to
provide access to a law library to a pro se criminal defendant did not violate clearly
established Federal law, as required for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
However, the Supreme Court declined to resolve a circuit split with respect to whether
Faretta v. California,6 which established a “Sixth Amendment right to self-representation,
implies a right of the pro se defendant to have access to a law library.”7 In the absence of
a decision by the Supreme Court, this Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit, which has
recognized a right to some access to legal resources.8 Although the contours of such right
are not precisely defined, the Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that some restrictions on the
access to a law library based on prison security concerns do not violate such right.9 Going
3 Docket 319 at 1–2.
4 See Docket 319-1 at 1.
5 Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9 (2005).
6 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
7 See Milton v. Morris, 767 F.2d 1443, 1446–47 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding “the state may not unreasonably
hinder the defendant’s efforts to prepare his own defense.”) but see Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9, 10 (2005)
(“The federal appellate courts have split on whether Faretta, which establishes a Sixth Amendment right to self-
representation, implies a right of the pro se defendant to have access to a law library. That question cannot be resolved
here[.]”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
8 See Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2000) (abrogated on other grounds by Kane v.
Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9, 10 (2005)).
9 Id.
Case 3:19-cr-00117-SLG-MMS Document 379 Filed 04/14/22 Page 2 of 4

United States v. Burk 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00117-JMK
Order Denying Request for Injunctive Relief 	Page 3
a step further, “[t]he Ninth Circuit has decidedly not required that a law library be made
available to all pro se defendants.”10
Mr. Burk has chosen to represent himself in this case and his other pro se
matters. This Court has appointed standby counsel for Mr. Burk on numerous occasions.
It is well understood that “a criminal defendant who exercises his right to reject counsel
necessarily relinquishes many of the benefits associated with representation by counsel.”11
Mr. Burk has some access to legal resources, as evidenced by the statements in his Motions,
as well as the fact that he has been able to prolifically, and regularly, produce filings in the
current matter. 	It does not appear that he has been denied all means of preparing and
presenting a defense, which might warrant a different analysis. It thus does not appear that
there has been a violation of his constitutional right to self-representation.
Even if Mr. Burk properly alleged a constitutional violation or a violation of
federal law with respect to his right to access the law library more frequently, which he has
not, the relief requested by Mr. Burk is improper. Mr. Burk cannot compel this Court to
grant injunctive relief against a non-party.12 	The State of Alaska Department of
Corrections is not a party to the present matter and the Court cannot order it to act. 	The
Court must defer to the Department of Corrections in this instance to regulate its internal
10 Amador v. Humboldt Cty. Correctional Facility, No. C 06-6043, 2007 WL 1411615, *4 (N. D. Cal.
May 11, 2007) (citing to United States v. Wilson, 690 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1982)).
11 United States v. Wilson, 690 F.2d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Nowhere did the Faretta Court suggest that
the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation implies further rights to materials, facilities, or investigative or
educational resources that might aid self-representation. We decline to interpret the right to self-representation under
the Sixth Amendment to include a right to conduct one’s own research at government expense.”).
12 See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltime Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).
Case 3:19-cr-00117-SLG-MMS Document 379 Filed 04/14/22 Page 3 of 4

United States v. Burk 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00117-JMK
Order Denying Request for Injunctive Relief 	Page 4
prison operations. Lastly, it appears that Mr. Burk has already requested this very relief in
a separate matter and his motion was denied.13
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motions at Dockets 312 and 319 are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
13 Burk v. Blake, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00043-SEH, ECF No. 50.
Case 3:19-cr-00117-SLG-MMS Document 379 Filed 04/14/22 Page 4 of 4