Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08124/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08124-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LeRoy Montoya, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan; et al., 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-8124-PCT-JAT

ORDER

On December 5, 2012, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued

a Report and Recommendation recommending that the habeas petition in this case be denied.

Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the Report and

Recommendation. Petitioner has also filed several other motions.

First, all of Petitioner’s motions for ruling on his habeas petition will be denied. The

Court cannot rule on the petition until Petitioner files his objections. 

Next, Petitioner has a motion pending for one free electronic copy of his file. This

motion will be denied because the Court has no means by which to provide Petitioner with

an electronic copy of his file, nor does the Court know if the prison has any means by which

Petitioner could view an electronic copy of his file. 

There remains, however, an issue regarding whether Petitioner has access to his file

in paper form. In other words, the Court cannot determine from this record whether

Petitioner has access to a paper copy of his file. See Doc. 27 and Doc. 28. Previously, the

Case 3:11-cv-08124-JAT Document 33 Filed 01/31/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Magistrate Judge ordered Respondent to advise the Court whether Petitioner has access to

his file. Respondent indicated a response would be forthcoming, but none has been filed.

Specifically, counsel for Respondent in this case indicated that counsel for Respondent for

purposes of prisoner civil rights cases would be responding to the Magistrate Judge’s order;

but said second counsel has not actually responded.

A federal court in California faced a similar question in the habeas context.

See Peyton v. Woodword, 2007 WL 120007 (E.D. Cal. January 11, 2007). In Peyton,

Petitioner alleged that he was being denied access to his legal materials and that such denial

was impeding his ability to file a supplement to his objections to the Report and

Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge. The Court held as follows:

...Petitioner is advised that generally claims concerning the conditions of one’s

confinement are more properly raised in a civil rights complaint filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a

prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v.

Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991), quoting, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. However, a civil rights action is the proper method for a

prisoner to challenge the conditions of his confinement. McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499; Badea, 931 F.2d at

574; Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases.

...

Petitioner alleges a denial of his right of access to the courts. The right to

access the courts is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus

proceedings, and civil rights actions challenging conditions of confinement.

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 [sic] at 354-55. A prisoner alleging a violation

of his right of access to the courts must demonstrate that he has suffered

“actual injury.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-50 (1996). The

actual-injury requirement mandates that an inmate “demonstrate that a

nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded.” Id. at 353.

Further, “the injury requirement is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated

legal claim,” but rather, the legal claim which was allegedly interfered with

must involve either an inmate’s attempt to attack his sentence or an action to

challenge the conditions of his confinement. The Ninth Circuit has interpreted

this to mean that the right extends only through the pleading stage, and is not

a right to successfully litigate the matter through resolution. See Cornett v.

Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir.1995) (determining that prisoners’ right

of access to the courts is limited to the pleading stage of a civil rights action

or petition for writ of habeas corpus).

Id. at *1-2.

Here, Petitioner has successfully filed a habeas petition; thus, this case has advanced

Case 3:11-cv-08124-JAT Document 33 Filed 01/31/13 Page 2 of 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

1

 Nothing in this Order shall be construed as having any issue preclusion or claim

preclusion effect on Petitioner’s ability to bring a § 1983 claim regarding his access to the

courts issues.

- 3 -

beyond the pleading stage. Accordingly, the Court finds, even accepting Petitioner’s

allegations as true, that he cannot show the actual injury required by Casey for this Court to

grant him relief regarding access to his legal file.1

 However, because the Magistrate Judge’s

Order and the Respondent’s response suggested that Petitioner might obtain further relief

regarding access to his file, the Court will give Petitioner additional time to file his

objections.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for ruling on his petition (Docs. 18 and

24) are denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to receive an electronic copy

of his file (Doc. 32) is denied.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file

objections (Doc. 31) is granted to the limited extent that Petitioner’s objections to the Report

and Recommendation are due within 30 days of this Order.

DATED this 30th day of January, 2013.

Case 3:11-cv-08124-JAT Document 33 Filed 01/31/13 Page 3 of 3