Harrington v. Glebe

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY, AND EXTENDING REPLY DEADLINE TO SEPTEMBER 4, 2015; denying 16 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying 18 Motion for Discovery; granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (CV, Case Administrator)PRINT 5 PAGES AND THE NEF

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

4
5
6

Petitioner,

7

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION AND MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY, AND EXTENDING
REPLY DEADLINE TO SEPTEMBER 4,
2015

v.

8
9

CASE NO. 4:15-CV-5014-EFS

RUSSELL ALLEN HARRINGTON,

PATRICK GLEBE,
Respondent.

10
11

Habeas petitioner Russell Allen Harrington asks the Court to enter
12
an injunction prohibiting Washington State Department of Corrections
13
from transferring him from Stafford Creek Corrections Center to another
14
state facility, particularly Walla Walla State Penitentiary or Coyote
15
Ridge Detention Facility, because he is concerned for his safety at
16
these institutions, he will not have access to the paralegal course he
17
recently began, and he will be farther away from his family.

ECF No.

18
16.

Mr. Harrington also seeks leave to obtain the photographs of the

19
crime scene and other pictures taken that day, a copy of the 911 tape,
20
and the notes used by the identified witnesses to refresh their memory
21
when testifying at trial.

ECF No. 18 at 3 (listing witnesses).

Lastly,

22
Mr. Harrington seeks additional time to file his reply to his habeas
23
petition because he began attending paralegal school in prison in April
24
2015 and has been distracted and stressed by the anticipated move to
25
another facility.
26
ORDER - 1

ECF No. 20.

1

Respondent opposes the injunction request, submitting that the

2

Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) has the ability to

3

transfer inmates consistent with its penological goals and procedures.

4

ECF No. 17.

5

injunctive relief is not appropriately sought through this habeas

6

proceeding.

7

Discovery and Motion to Grant an Extension of Time as well.

8

21 & 22.

In addition, Respondent maintains that the requested

Respondent

opposes

Mr.

Harrington’s

The Court takes each motion in turn.

9

Motion

to

Grant

ECF Nos.

First, the Court denies Mr.

10

Harrington’s requested injunction.

11

whether the state court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an

12

unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law or based

13

on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

14

presented to the state court.

15

proceeding is not the correct proceeding in which to challenge the loss

16

of a prison job, or a transfer away from family and friends.

17

v.

18

transfers are constitutional even where they involve “long distances

19

and an ocean crossing”); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1013 (9th

20

Cir. 2004) (recognizing that an inmate does not have a right to be

21

housed at the facility of his choice); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527,

22

532 (9th Cir. 1985) ("An inmate's liberty interests are sufficiently

23

extinguished by his conviction so that the state may change his place

24

of confinement even though the degree of confinement may be different

25

and prison life may be more disagreeable in one institution than

Wakinekona,

26
ORDER - 2

461

U.S.

238,

This case is a habeas proceeding—

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

247

(1983)

(recognizing

This habeas

Cf. Olim

that

prison

1

another.”); RCW 72.68.010(1) (identifying DOC’s ability to transfer

2

inmates between institutions).

3

Nonetheless, during this habeas proceeding, the Court must ensure

4

Mr. Harrington has adequate access to legal materials and resources to

5

pursue his habeas petition.

6

(1996).

7

Harrington a four-month extension thus far for filing his reply, and

8

Mr. Harrington has had access to the prison law library regularly since

9

January 2015.

See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351

The Court has kept an eye on this necessity by granting Mr.

ECF No. 20, Ex. 3.

And the DOC has agreed not to move

10

Mr. Harrington until after his current reply deadline in late August

11

even

12

eligible for transfer to another facility in order to aid his transition

13

back to the community in light of his anticipated release in August

14

2018.

15

hold on any potential transfer for Mr. Harrington given that he has an

16

upcoming reply-filing deadline).

17

F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that a prison may not erect

18

barriers that actively and unreasonably interfere with a prisoner’s

19

access to the courts).

though

pursuant

to

DOC

policies

Mr.

Harrington

is

currently

ECF No. 17, Ex. 1 ¶ 17 (noting that DOC has placed a temporary

See also Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658

20

Notwithstanding these accommodations, Mr. Harrington seeks an

21

extension of his August 21, 2015 reply deadline so that he can obtain

22

and review the requested discovery and in light of his schooling and

23

the stress he has experienced as a result of the anticipated transfer.

24

The Court is hesitant to grant Mr. Harrington additional time to prepare

25

his reply given the considerable amount of time that has already been

26

granted.

ORDER - 3

Nonetheless, because Mr. Harrington’s focus was shifted from

1

his habeas-petition reply to his concern regarding a transfer to another

2

institution,

3

appropriate.

4

September 4, 2015.

5

months that Mr. Harrington has had to prepare a reply and the access he

6

has had to the prison law library.

7

his reply is not to raise new arguments but rather is to respond to the

8

arguments raised by Respondent.

9

504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994) (recognizing that a reply “is not the proper

10

the

Court

finds

a

limited

two-week

extension

is

Accordingly, the Court extends the reply deadline to
A longer extension is unnecessary given the many

Mr. Harrington is cautioned that

See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d

pleading to raise additional grounds for relief”).
Mr. Harrington requests the discovery listed in his motion in

11
12

order to “complete his habeas answer.”

13

is insufficient to satisfy Rule 6(b) of the Rules Governing Section

14

2254 Proceeding:

“A party requesting discovery must provide reasons

15

for the request.”

See also Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358

16

(9th Cir. 1993) (“[T]here simply is no federal right, constitutional or

17

otherwise, to discovery in habeas proceedings as a general matter.”).

18

Mr. Harrington must identify how each requested piece of evidence will

19

support his insufficient-evidence argument in his habeas petition so

20

that the Court can reliably determine whether the evidence should be

21

disclosed.

22

addition, Mr. Harrington failed to identify whether the evidence he

23

seeks was admitted into evidence at trial.

24

that a habeas petition asserting an insufficient-evidence claim may only

25

cite

to

26
ORDER - 4

ECF No. 18.

This articulation

See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 403 (1993). In

evidence

admitted

at

See id. at 402 (recognizing

trial—not

non-record

evidence).

1

Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Harrington’s motion for discovery at

2

this time.

3

For the above-given reasons, IT IS ORDERED:

4

1.

is DENIED.

5
6

2.

3.

13

Mr. Harrington SHALL file his reply to his

habeas petition no later than September 4, 2015.

10

12

Mr. Harrington’s Motion to Grant an Extension of Time, ECF No.
20, is GRANTED.

9

11

Mr. Harrington’s Motion to Grant Discovery, ECF No. 18, is
DENIED.

7
8

Mr. Harrington’s Motion to Grant an Injunction, ECF No. 16,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to Mr. Harrington and counsel.
DATED this

_19th

day of August 2015.

14
s/Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2015\5014.deny.injunct.lc1.docx

ORDER - 5