its functions. Given the sheer volume of his unique demand and the limited resources of the clerk’s office, Conradi established limits that would allow Barber to inspect the records he sought, but would also make sure that such inspection would not unduly interfere with the regular duties of the clerk’s office. It may be- that the efficient administration of the clerk’s office could be served by means that are less restrictive upon Barber’s right to access. But - Conradi was not obliged to adopt the least restrictive means. The Court concludes that the two hours-per-week limit imposed upon. Barber’s access was not and is not substantially broader than necessary to further the government interest at stake. Cf. Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The Court may not second-guess the balance
holding that although prison inmates have a first amendment right to access to the courts prison officials may regulate law library access including reasonable time place and manner of access taking into account the administrative needs of the institution holding that the prison physician lacked standing to raise the prisoners rights of access to the courts holding that the total denial of all access to the law library for seven months violated the plaintiffs constitutional right of access to the courts holding that allegations of a total denial of all access to the prison law library for 25 days following a prison riot stated a constitutional violation holding that denial of access to carbon paper and reproduction equipment and denial of facetoface access to other inmates did not deprive an inmate of his right of access to the courts