Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02856/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02856-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

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 

SH 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Douglas D. Yokois, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

 No. CV 16-02856-PHX-DGC (MHB) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Douglas D. Yokois, who is currently confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex South Unit in Florence, Arizona has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction (Doc. 64) and a “Notice to the Court Regarding Harassment and Retaliation 

Against Plaintiff” (Doc. 80). The Court will construe these as motions for injunctive 

relief. Defendants oppose the motions. (Doc. 69.) The Court will deny the motions.1

I. Background 

 In his three-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sued several Defendants 

for violations of his religious rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land 

 

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. 

Case 2:16-cv-02856-DGC Document 111 Filed 01/10/18 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

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 

Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) arising from their alleged denial of 

Plaintiff’s use and possession of several religious items. (Doc. 28.) On screening under 

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

RLUIPA claims against Defendants Cervantes, Daniel, Vicklund, O’Neil, Linderman, 

Brown, Henry, Ryan, Van Winkle, Hensley, Thompson, McWilliams, Pinney, Cheriyan, 

Mattos, Curran,2

 and Miser and directed them to answer. (Doc. 29.) Defendant Herman 

was later substituted in for Defendant Linderman in his official capacity only. (Doc. 36.) 

II. Motion for Injunctive Relief 

In his first motion, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction that prohibits 

Defendant Ryan and his subordinates “from all further acts of harassment, abuse, 

retaliation, and discriminatory behaviors against plaintiff” including “intra and inter-unit 

moves” and searches of his property, mail, or person. (Doc. 64 at 2.) In his second 

motion, Plaintiff describes several alleged acts of retaliation against him by prison staff 

members and asks the Court to order Defendants to cease their retaliatory conduct and 

also “have him x-rayed and to immediately supply him with a replacement serviceable 

wheelchair suitable for his height and weight.” (Doc. 80 at 9.) Defendants oppose the 

motions on the ground that Plaintiff’s requested relief is unrelated to the claims alleged in 

the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 69.) 

III. Discussion 

 A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” that may be granted only 

where the movant shows that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities 

tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. 

Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 

F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). An injunction should not issue if it “is not of the same 

character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Kaimowitz 

 

2

 Plaintiff mistakenly referred to this Defendant as “Kern” in his Second 

Amendment Complaint. (Doc. 28; see Doc. 41.) 

Case 2:16-cv-02856-DGC Document 111 Filed 01/10/18 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

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 

v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997). But if the request for relief concerns the 

prisoner’s access to the courts, “a nexus between the preliminary relief and the ultimate 

relief sought is not required.” Prince v. Schriro, et al., CV 08-1299-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 

1456648, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) (citing Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793, 796 

(9th Cir. 1990)). 

 Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief at this time. As an initial matter, 

Plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation and his request for medical treatment arise from 

events distinct from his First Amendment and RLUIPA claims that are before the Court. 

New claims may not be presented in a motion for injunctive relief and must be brought in 

a separate action. See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per 

curiam) (a party seeking injunctive relief must establish a relationship between the 

claimed injury and the conduct asserted in the complaint). 

 Moreover, even if the Court construes Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his legal 

mail and legal documents as an access-to-courts claim, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive 

relief still fails. To maintain such a claim, an inmate must submit evidence showing an 

“actual injury” resulting from the defendant’s actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 

(1996). The actual injury must be “actual prejudice . . . such as the inability to meet a 

filing deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348-49. Plaintiff has failed to show a 

likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury. There is no evidence that 

Plaintiff has faced an unreasonable delay or the inability to file anything in this action. A 

review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff has filed numerous motions and responses. 

Plaintiff has not shown that his ability to litigate has been impeded. Plaintiff has not been 

prevented from bringing a claim. Thus, Plaintiff has not established actual injury. 

Plaintiff has also failed to satisfy the remaining requirements that must be shown to 

warrant injunctive relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 62), Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 64), and 

Case 2:16-cv-02856-DGC Document 111 Filed 01/10/18 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

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 

“Notice to the Court Regarding Harassment and Retaliation Against Plaintiff” (Doc. 80), 

and the motions are denied. 

 Dated this 10th day of January, 2018. 

Case 2:16-cv-02856-DGC Document 111 Filed 01/10/18 Page 4 of 4