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ORDER: The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's Motion to Seal 62 , Motion for Preliminary Injunction 64 , and "Notice to the Court Regarding Harassment and Retaliation Against Plaintiff"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)

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-