Farris 300210 v. Thornell ( 2023 )

1 MGD 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Marzet Farris, III, No. CV-23-08002-PCT-JAT (JFM) 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 vs. 12 Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 16 Petitioner Marzet Farris, III has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion Requiring 18 Respondents Furnish Associated Case Law for All Citations Incorporated Within Any 19 Respondent Filing,” which the Court construes as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 20 (Doc. 6.) The Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion without prejudice. 21 I. Motion 22 In his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Petitioner seeks an order requiring 23 Respondents’ counsel to attach copies of all caselaw cited by Respondents in their filings 24 in this matter. (Doc. 6.) Alternatively, Petitioner asks the Court to order “Respondent’s 25 agents” at Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma, Cheyenne Unit, to provide him with 26 access to Lexis Nexis and Westlaw databases or order the librarians at Petitioner’s prison 27 complex to provide Petitioner with copies of all decisions cited in Respondents’ filings. 28 (Id. at 4.) Petitioner argues that not granting this relief “would only serve to impede [him] 1 from properly addressing his claims or perfecting a proper pleading . . . while equally 2 prejudicing his standing and integrity before this Court” and “would almost certainly 3 hamper [the Court’s] own procedural and functional effectiveness in its pursuit of the 4 interests of justice.” (Id.) 5 Respondents argue the Court should deny the Motion because Petitioner fails to 6 demonstrate any prejudice, does not allege he requested or has been denied, access to 7 caselaw or other legal materials from the prison law library, and he does not argue that the 8 prison’s law library is inadequate to allow him to fully reply to Respondents’ forthcoming 9 answer to his habeas petition.1 (Doc. 9 at 1.) Respondents argue that any prejudice to 10 Petitioner at this point is entirely speculative. (Id.) 11 Petitioner replies that prejudice “has not only been wholly demonstrated and 12 fervently implied within [his] Motion but was and remains self-evident for most logical 13 and reasonable minds to recognize.” (Doc. 10 at 1.) Petitioner argues that “very distinct 14 prejudice and harm” exists given that he does not have the resources and materials 15 “required to properly disseminate, investigate, study and/or refute Respondent’s 16 forthcoming challenges absent the complimentary associated caselaw hard copies.” (Id.) 17 Petitioner further asserts that prison policies “strictly prohibit librarians, educators, 18 departmental staff, et al., from providing and/or distributing caselaw to prisoners,” the only 19 items available to Petitioner are those contained in Department Order 902, and only .005% 20 of the prison library’s inventory is devoted to legal resources. (Id. at 4.) 21 II. Legal Standard 22 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should 23 not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” 24 Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 25 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 26 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy 27 28 1 Petitioner filed this Motion early in this action, and the Motion was fully briefed before Respondents filed their Answer to the Petition. 1 never awarded as of right”). Nonetheless, “federal courts must not shrink from their 2 obligation to enforce the constitutional rights of all persons, including prisoners” and must 3 not “allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve 4 intrusion into the realm of prison administration.” Porretti v. Dzurenda, 11 F.4th 1037, 5 1047 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). 6 A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure must show: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer 8 irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his 9 favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 10 Where a plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction, rather than a prohibitory injunction, 11 injunctive relief is “subject to a higher standard” and is “permissible when ‘extreme or very 12 serious damage will result’ that is not ‘capable of compensation in damages,’ and the merits 13 of the case are not ‘doubtful.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 999 (9th Cir. 2017) 14 (quoting Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 15 (9th Cir. 2009)). Further, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, injunctive relief must 16 be narrowly drawn and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm. 18 17 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 18 2000). 19 A court may issue an injunction against a non-party only where the non-party acts 20 in active concert or participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (a 21 preliminary injunction only binds those who receive actual notice of it by personal service 22 or are parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in 23 active concert); see Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may 24 issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 25 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before 26 the court.”); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 27 (1969). 28 1 The Court lacks jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief that are not related to 2 the claims pleaded in the operative complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. 3 Queen’s Med. Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[w]hen a plaintiff seeks 4 injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the 5 authority to issue an injunction”); see also Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th 6 Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (a party seeking injunctive relief must establish a relationship 7 between the claimed injury and the conduct asserted in the complaint). 8 III. Discussion 9 As stated, a court generally does not have authority to issue an injunction for relief 10 on claims not pled in the underlying complaint. But an exception to this rule arises where 11 the injunctive relief sought is related to a prisoner’s access to the courts. See Prince v. 12 Schriro, et al., CV 08-1299-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 1456648, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) 13 (where the relief sought relates to a prisoner’s access to the court, “a nexus between the 14 preliminary relief and the ultimate relief sought is not required[,]” and the court need not 15 consider the merits of the underlying complaint) (citing Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 16 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1990)). 17 Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts, protected by the First 18 Amendment right to petition and the Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due 19 process. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other 20 grounds by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.2 (9th Cir. 2015). This right is limited 21 to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and Section 1983 civil rights actions. Lewis v. 22 Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). The constitutional right of access to the courts 23 encompasses a right to litigate without active interference. See Silva, 658 F.3d at 1102. 24 To support an active interference claim, a prisoner must allege facts showing that officials’ 25 actions hindered the ability to litigate and that, as a result, the prisoner suffered an actual 26 injury. Id.; see Lewis, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (to maintain an access-to-the-courts claim, 27 a prisoner must show an “actual injury” resulting from the defendant’s actions). Actual 28 injury must be “actual prejudice . . . such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to 1| present a claim.” Lewis, 518 at 348—49; see Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 2| 2004) (defining actual injury as the “inability to file a complaint or defend against a charge’). The failure to allege an actual injury is “fatal.” Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 4} 1155 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[flailure to show that a ‘non-frivolous legal claim had been 5 | frustrated’ is fatal’) (quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.4). Further, in alleging denial of 6| the right of access to the courts, specificity is required. Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 7| 1317 (4th Cir. 1996). 8 Petitioner’s claim regarding lack of legal caselaw implicates his right of access to the courts such that the Court may consider the Motion. Nevertheless, Petitioner’s Motion 10 | fails to allege an actual injury. Petitioner has already filed his Petition, in which he 11 | articulated the factual and legal basis for his claims. (See Doc. 1.) Petitioner does not allege that he has missed a filing deadline or been unable to prepare legal documents due 13 | tothe lack of caselaw. As such, Petitioner has not satisfied the specificity requirement for supporting an access-to-the-courts claim, and the Court will deny the Motion. 15 IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 6), and the Motion is denied. 17 Dated this 21st day of July, 2023. 18 19 a 20 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _5-