Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01976/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01976-3/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Terry Lee Lacy, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Tara L. Diaz, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1976-PHX-SMM (MHB)

ORDER

Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction and sentence

of 6.5 years imposed for burglary in the second degree (Doc. #1). Petitioner seeks an order

requiring the Arizona Department of Corrections and the prison paralegal to “stop hindering

and delaying” his attempts to prosecute the instant petition (Doc. #16). Petitioner alleges that

he must obtain approval from the prison paralegal before he can get copies of pleadings, and

that the paralegal delays making copies while she is determining the admissibility of the

requested copies (id.). 

First, Petitioner is seeking an order against non-parties. Injunctive or restraining

orders are “binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants,

employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them

who receive actual notice of the order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d). Therefore, Petitioner is seeking

relief which he cannot obtain.

Second, in order to obtain an order, Petitioner must demonstrate a significant threat

of immediate irreparable injury. Midgett v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transp. Dist. of

Case 2:06-cv-01976-SMM Document 22 Filed 06/04/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Oregon, 254 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2001); AGCC v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950

F.2d 1401, 1410 (9th Cir. 1991). Petitioner has not demonstrated that any “delay or

hindrance” has caused his inability to prosecute the instant petition or is a significant threat

to his ability to prosecute the instant petition.

Finally, the Court will not issue an order allowing Petitioner unfettered access to

copies of all of Petitioners evidence. Petitioner must inform the Court of the contents of the

copies he seeks, demonstrate that the copies are material to the instant action, and establish

that he is unable to obtain the copies without a court order. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion

will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Court Order, Ordering

ADOC and Contracted Paralegals to Copy all Petitioner’s Relevant Evidence (Doc. #16) is

DENIED.

DATED this 1st day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01976-SMM Document 22 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 2