via Johnson’s personal petition for habeas corpus. Absent Johnson’s habeas claim, there would have been no justiciable controversy for the USSC to decide. Thus, there would have been no path to reach the issue regarding access to the courts. In essence, if there is another source of assistance for illiterate inmates, then there is no violation of Johnson as there is no independent right to provide legal assistance to another inmate. See Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373, 378 (6th Cir.1993) (“[W]hile there is technically no independent right to assist, prison officials may not prevent such assistance or retaliate for providing such assistance where no reasonable alternatives are available.” (emphasis added)); cf. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Here, Appellant fails to allege that there is
holding government had not met its burden allowing it to invoke the brown v ohio 432 us 161 97 sct 2221 53 led2d 187 1977 exception holding that proof of prejudice is generally a necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim and that the due process inquiry must consider the reasons for  the prejudice quoting united states v lovasco 431 us 783 790 97 sct 2044 52 led2d 752 1977 holding that a prisoner has no first amendment right to provide legal assistance to other inmates and that therefore prison officials did not violate the prisoners constitutional rights when they intercepted a letter containing legal advice that he sent to another prisoner recognizing that inmates have no freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance recognizing that inmates have a right to receive legal advice from other inmates only when it is a necessary means for ensuring a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts  quoting bounds v smith 430 us 817 825 97 sct 1491 52 led2d 72 1977