205 (3d Cir.2008). In addition, “[t]he complaint must describe the underlying arguable claim well enough to show that it is ‘more than mere hope,’ and it must describe the ‘lost remedy.’ ” Id. at 205-06 (citing Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416-17, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002)). Williams’s claim rests solely on the allegations that Appellees denied him access to courts because Talbot Hall does not have a law library, because they withheld certain legal documents, and because they recorded his communications with the District Court Clerk. Thus, Williams failed to state an access to courts claim because he did not allege an actual injury relative to the complained-of actions by Appellees. See also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (<HOLDING>). IV. Accordingly, for the reasons given in
recognizing that inmates have no freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance holding that prisoner did not have right to access law library because he had courtappointed counsel holding that allowing inmates to select volumes twice each week from a list of books available in the county law library and limiting inmates to no more than two volumes at a time violated the inmates rights to meaningful access to the courts holding that there is no abstract freestanding right to a law library and a prisoner must demonstrate that his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim were hindered holding that during a postriot lockdown refusal of access to main law library is constitutional as long as access to basic law library for initial legal research is permitted