Opinion
CV-20-00538-PHX-DLR (ESW)
09-14-2021
Clemente Arias-Luna, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
HONORABLE DOUGLAS L. RAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 8, 2021, the Court overruled Petitioner's objections to the undersigned's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) and dismissed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with prejudice. (Doc. 26). Pending before the Court is Petitioner's August 6, 2021 “Motion for Injunctive Relief” (Doc. 44). The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry (“ADCRR”) filed a Response (Doc. 46), to which Petitioner has replied (Doc. 47). For the reasons explained below, it is recommended that the Court deny Petitioner's Motion (Doc. 44).
Petitioner states that he brings his Motion for Injunctive Relief “due to [ADCRR's] interfering, intimidating, and retaliating my prison jailhouse lawyer for assisting me in ascerting [sic] my first (1st) Amendment right to appeal as granted . . . .” (Doc. 44 at 1). The Motion details a number of retaliatory actions allegedly taken against Petitioner's jailhouse lawyer, such as firing him from his assigned work, denying him a work assignment, denying him a lower bunk, removing his chair, and being told by the Librarian's Office that he cannot assist Petitioner while at the library. (Id. at 2-3). Petitioner requests that the Court order ADCRR to (i) “cease and desist any and all retaliatory, harassment, or intimidation” against Petitioner and his jailhouse lawyer; (ii) reinstate the jailhouse lawyer's work assignment with back pay; (iii) expand library access time; (iv) and retain a third party to investigate Petitioner's claims.
A preliminary injunction may be granted only where the movant shows that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The movant “has the burden of proof on each element of the test.” See Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).
Generally, “[w]hen a Petitioner seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015); see De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) (preliminary injunctive relief is inappropriate for matters “lying wholly outside the issues in the suit”). But an exception to this rule arises where the injunctive relief sought is related to access to the courts. See Prince v. Schriro, et al., CV 08-1299-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 1456648, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) (where the relief sought relates to a prisoner's access to the court, “a nexus between the preliminary relief and the ultimate relief sought is not required[, ]” and the court need not consider the merits of the underlying complaint) (citing Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1990)).
When granting injunctive relief, the Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties in the action and to the viable legal claims upon which the action is proceeding. See Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009). Thus, a court should not grant an injunction “when the injunction in question is not of the same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997); see Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (a Petitioner seeking injunctive relief must show “a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint”).
“Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the legality or duration of confinement.” Beardslee v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “A civil rights action, in contrast, is the proper method of challenging conditions of confinement.” Id. (quoting Badea, 931 F.2d at 574) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979) (the proper remedy for complaints challenging conditions of confinement is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Here, Petitioner's claim that his jailhouse lawyer has been subjected to retaliatory actions by prison officials is not a challenge to the legality or duration of Petitioner's confinement, but rather to the conditions of confinement. Petitioner's claim is properly brought as an alleged violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is not a proper basis for an injunction in this closed habeas case. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court deny Petitioner's “Motion for Injunctive Relief” (Doc. 44).
This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).