Henson v. Corizon Health LLC et al

Filing 198

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 194 ), and the Motion is denied. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Michael T Liburdi on 1/6/2021. (MHW)

1

WO

SH

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Christopher James Henson,

10
11
12
13

No. CV 19-04396-PHX-MTL (DMF)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Corizon Health , et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Christopher James Henson, who is currently confined in the Arizona State

16

Prison Complex (ASPC)-Florence, East Unit, brought this pro se civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to

18

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated Eighth Amendment

19

medical care claims against Defendants Corizon Health, Nurse Practitioner Dorothy Igwe,

20

Contracting Monitoring Bureau Director David Robertson, and Supervisor Vanessa

21

Headstream based on their alleged failure to treat Plaintiff’s Hepatitis C and a nodule on

22

his scrotum. (Doc. 6.) The Court ordered these Defendants to answer and dismissed the

23

remaining claims and Defendants. (Id.)

24

On November 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Injunction and

25

Temporary Restraining Order in which he alleged that Arizona Department of Corrections

26

(ADC) Director David Shinn had revoked Plaintiff’s e-mail access and his access to the

27

Lexis legal search engine on his computer tablet (Doc. 184 at 1–2.) Plaintiff asked the

28

Court to issue an injunction ordering ADC to allow him continued access to Lexis, the

1

ability to draft documents on his tablet, and continued e-mail communication. (Id.)

2

Defendants responded to the Motion on December 14, 2020. (Doc. 190.)

3

In an Order issued December 15, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for

4

injunctive relief without requiring a reply from Plaintiff because Plaintiff’s allegations in

5

his motion arose from different events than those alleged in this action and because

6

Plaintiff’s allegations in the Motion did not support an access-to-court claim. (Doc. 192.)

7

Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the December 15, 2020 Order because the Court

8

issued the Order without a reply from Plaintiff. (Doc. 194.)

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for
reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error
or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have
been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
Any such motion shall point out with specificity the matters
that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended
by the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s
attention for the first time and the reasons they were not
presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought
in the Court’s Order. No motion for reconsideration of an
Order may repeat any oral or written argument made by the
movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that
resulted in the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection
may be grounds for denial of the motion.
LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).

20

Here, Plaintiff’s reply was not necessary for the Court to decide the Motion for

21

injunctive relief because it was clear from the record that Plaintiff did not satisfy the

22

requirements for obtaining injunctive relief. The Court specifically found that:

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is not entitled to the requested relief. As an initial
matter, Plaintiff’s allegations in his motion arise from events
distinct from his Eighth Amendment medical care claims that
are currently before the Court. New claims may not be
presented in a motion for injunctive relief and must be brought
in a separate action. . . . Further, even if the Court construes
Plaintiff’s allegations in the motion for injunctive relief as an
access-to-courts claim, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief
still fails. . . . Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success
-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

on the merits or irreparable injury as it pertains to an accessto-courts claim. There is no evidence that Plaintiff has faced
an unreasonable delay or the inability to file anything in this
action, and his vague statement that his “ability to navigate the
legal waters of this matter” has been impacted is too vague to
support an access-to-courts claim. A review of the docket in
this matter reflects that Plaintiff has filed numerous motions to
the Court. . . . At this time, Plaintiff has not shown that his
ability to litigate this or any other case has been impeded.
Plaintiff has not been prevented from bringing a claim as a
result of the alleged conduct. Thus, Plaintiff has not
established actual injury. Plaintiff has also failed to satisfy the
remaining requirements that must be shown to warrant
injunctive relief.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(Doc. 192 at 2–3.) Upon reviewing the record before it, the Court determined that it was
not necessary to wait for a reply. The Court did not commit clear error by denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for injunctive relief without waiting for a reply. See Palmer v. Web
Industries, Inc., No. CV 04-2362-PCT-SMM, 2007 WL 625924 at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 26,
2007) (a court’s decision to decide a motion without waiting for a reply was “not a proper
basis for seeking reconsideration” because “replies are optional, and therefore not required
to be considered”). The Court finds no basis for reconsidering its December 15, 2020
Order, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 194), and the Motion is denied.
Dated this 6th day of January, 2021.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-