Yokois v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al

Filing 111

ORDER: The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's Motion to Seal 62 , Motion for Preliminary Injunction 64 , and "Notice to the Court Regarding Harassment and Retaliation Against Plaintiff" 80 , and the motions are denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/10/2018. (REK)

Download PDF
1 2 SH WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Douglas D. Yokois, 10 11 12 13 No. CV 16-02856-PHX-DGC (MHB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Douglas D. Yokois, who is currently confined in the Arizona State Prison 18 Complex South Unit in Florence, Arizona has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Preliminary 20 Injunction (Doc. 64) and a “Notice to the Court Regarding Harassment and Retaliation 21 Against Plaintiff” (Doc. 80). The Court will construe these as motions for injunctive 22 relief. Defendants oppose the motions. (Doc. 69.) The Court will deny the motions.1 23 I. Background 24 In his three-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sued several Defendants 25 for violations of his religious rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land 26 27 28 1 Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal the Lodged Proposed Declaration of inmate John Schenk. (Doc. 62.) The Court has reviewed the lodged declaration, and it has no bearing on the Court’s analysis of Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Motion to Seal will be denied. 1 Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) arising from their alleged denial of 2 Plaintiff’s use and possession of several religious items. (Doc. 28.) On screening under 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated First Amendment and 4 RLUIPA claims against Defendants Cervantes, Daniel, Vicklund, O’Neil, Linderman, 5 Brown, Henry, Ryan, Van Winkle, Hensley, Thompson, McWilliams, Pinney, Cheriyan, 6 Mattos, Curran,2 and Miser and directed them to answer. (Doc. 29.) Defendant Herman 7 was later substituted in for Defendant Linderman in his official capacity only. (Doc. 36.) 8 II. Motion for Injunctive Relief 9 In his first motion, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction that prohibits 10 Defendant Ryan and his subordinates “from all further acts of harassment, abuse, 11 retaliation, and discriminatory behaviors against plaintiff” including “intra and inter-unit 12 moves” and searches of his property, mail, or person. (Doc. 64 at 2.) In his second 13 motion, Plaintiff describes several alleged acts of retaliation against him by prison staff 14 members and asks the Court to order Defendants to cease their retaliatory conduct and 15 also “have him x-rayed and to immediately supply him with a replacement serviceable 16 wheelchair suitable for his height and weight.” (Doc. 80 at 9.) Defendants oppose the 17 motions on the ground that Plaintiff’s requested relief is unrelated to the claims alleged in 18 the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 69.) 19 III. Discussion 20 A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” that may be granted only 21 where the movant shows that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 22 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 23 tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. 24 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 25 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). An injunction should not issue if it “is not of the same 26 character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Kaimowitz 27 28 2 Plaintiff mistakenly referred to this Defendant as “Kern” in his Second Amendment Complaint. (Doc. 28; see Doc. 41.) -2- 1 v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997). But if the request for relief concerns the 2 prisoner’s access to the courts, “a nexus between the preliminary relief and the ultimate 3 relief sought is not required.” Prince v. Schriro, et al., CV 08-1299-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 4 1456648, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) (citing Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 796 5 (9th Cir. 1990)). 6 Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief at this time. As an initial matter, 7 Plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation and his request for medical treatment arise from 8 events distinct from his First Amendment and RLUIPA claims that are before the Court. 9 New claims may not be presented in a motion for injunctive relief and must be brought in 10 a separate action. See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per 11 curiam) (a party seeking injunctive relief must establish a relationship between the 12 claimed injury and the conduct asserted in the complaint). 13 Moreover, even if the Court construes Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his legal 14 mail and legal documents as an access-to-courts claim, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive 15 relief still fails. To maintain such a claim, an inmate must submit evidence showing an 16 “actual injury” resulting from the defendant’s actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 17 (1996). The actual injury must be “actual prejudice . . . such as the inability to meet a 18 filing deadline or to present a claim.” 19 likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury. There is no evidence that 20 Plaintiff has faced an unreasonable delay or the inability to file anything in this action. A 21 review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff has filed numerous motions and responses. 22 Plaintiff has not shown that his ability to litigate has been impeded. Plaintiff has not been 23 prevented from bringing a claim. 24 Plaintiff has also failed to satisfy the remaining requirements that must be shown to 25 warrant injunctive relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Id. at 348-49. Plaintiff has failed to show a Thus, Plaintiff has not established actual injury. 26 IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to 27 Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 62), Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 64), and 28 -3- 1 “Notice to the Court Regarding Harassment and Retaliation Against Plaintiff” (Doc. 80), 2 and the motions are denied. 3 Dated this 10th day of January, 2018. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?