Woods v. Kaemingk et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 in full. Petition 1 is DISMISSED. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 7/28/2017. Mailed to Woods (TAG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION

WAYNEG. WOODS,

CV 17-51-H-DLC-JTJ

Petitioner,
ORDER
vs.
MICHAEL FLETCHER, DENNY
KEAMINGK, and DARIN YOUNG,
et al.,
Respondents.
United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered his Order, Findings
and Recommendations on May 26, 2017, recommending dismissal of Petitioner
Wayne G. Woods's ("Woods") petition for habeas corpus. Woods timely filed an
objection and is therefore entitled to de novo review of those findings and
recommendations to which he specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1 )(C).
This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which
no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc.,
656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
"Clear error exists if the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir.

-1-

2000). Because the parties are familiar with the factual background of this case, it
will not be repeated here.
Upon review of the objections, the Court finds that Woods fails to articulate
any specific objections to the Findings and Recommendations and, instead, argues
that public officials in South Dakota were remiss in their duties and asks that this
Court right their alleged mistakes. Despite this plea for assistance, the Court
agrees with Judge Johnston, upon de novo review, that Woods's petition for habeas
corpus relief, though couched as civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is in reality
his second or successive habeas petition and should be dismissed for a lack of
jurisdiction. Even though Woods requests money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, the underlying relief sought by Woods is to have his criminal conviction
overtured and to be released from prison. (See Doc. 1-1 at 4 (requesting that his
sentence be overturned and he be released into the community).) This request
brings the petition within the realm of habeas corpus relief. Nettles v. Grounds,
830 F.3d 922, 928 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 645 (2017) (stating that
claims which would have resulted in immediate release if successful fall within the
core of habeas corpus and have to be brought pursuant to a habeas petition).
Woods's objection is overturned.
Additionally, in his objections, Woods requests review of Judge Johnston's
-2-

order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. "[T]he Sixth Amendment
right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions." Chaney v. Lewis, 801
F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Rather, a district court has the discretion to
appoint counsel when it determines "that the interests of justice so require." 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). Here, the Court finds that the interests of justice do not
require the appointment of an attorney. Woods's pleadings are clearly written and
it is apparent that he is capable of pursuing his petition pro se. Further, this case
does not present any unusual circumstances which would warrant the appointment
of counsel. Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 484 (9th Cir. 1958) ("Except under
most unusual circumstances, an attorney ought not to be appointed by a federal
court for the purpose of trying to find something wrong with a state judgment of
conviction."). As such, the Court will overturn Woods's objection to the denial of
his motion for counsel.
Lastly, after the Findings and Recommendations were issued, Woods's filed
a document which the Court has construed as a motion for preliminary injunction
and/or a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 7.) Though it is unclear from the
motion, Woods alleges that he has been denied access to the prison library, denied
legal documents, and the prison mail room has engaged in fraud. Despite these
claims, it is unclear to the Court what relief is being sought by Woods.
-3-

Nevertheless, the Court will deny the motion because, as stated above, the Court
lacks jurisdiction in this matter and, therefore, Woods cannot possibility succeed
on the merits of this litigation. See Winter v. Nat. Resources Def Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (in order to grant preliminary relief, a plaintiff "must
establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits").
(1) Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 3) are
ADOPTED IN FULL;
(2) The Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction;
(3) Wood's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7) is DENIED;
(4) The Clerk of Court is ordered to enter, by separate document, a
judgment in favor of Respondents and against Petitioner.
(5) A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
DATED this

2..~~ay of July, 2017

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court

-4-