Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01461/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01461-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

WAYNE M. MILLER,

Petitioner, 

vs.

CARSON MCWILLIAMS, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1461-PHX-MHM (BPV)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Presently pending before the Court are Petitioner’s “Motion to Enjoin, Es-stop,

Remove” (Doc. No. 19) and “Motion to Restore Record” (Doc. No. 20). Respondents

have filed no response to the motions, however, no response or reply to Petitioner's

Motions shall be ordered as the court finds that neither one is necessary to a fair and

just ruling on the pending motions nor would they be of material assistance to the

court in considering the Motions. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motions

be denied for the reason that the requested relief is not warranted as a matter of law.

In Petitioner’s first motion, he alleges that he filed an informal resolution to his

counselor stating that “My microwaving must stop” and further complaining of head

pain; whereupon Petitioner was placed in maximum security, psychiatrically

examined, and placed in hearings to establish the need to medicate Petitioner against

his wishes. (Doc. No. 19, at 1-2) Petitioner demands that he be removed to federal

custody and taken to the Maricopa County Medical Center. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 25 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 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 -2-

argues that he is “firmly convinced that [he] can enjoin civil rights violations (as here)

with [his] habeas (unconstitutional conviction) issues for judicial economy and abject

necessity and immense importance...” (Id. at 3.) 

To the extent that Petitioner is attempting to amend his Petition to add a civil

rights claim, Petitioner cannot challenge the conditions of his confinement in this

action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Habeas corpus is the proper proceeding in which to challenge the legality or

duration of confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). In contrast, a civil rights action is the

proper method for challenging the conditions of a prisoner’s confinement. Id. (citing

Preiser, 411 U.S. at 498-99); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979)

(the proper remedy for complaints challenging conditions of confinement is a civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Although the district court has the discretion to construe a habeas petition

which attacks the conditions of confinement as an action pursuant to § 1983, see

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S.Ct. 407, 409, 30 L.Ed.2d 428 (1971);

Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 729-30 (9th Cir. 1974) (a pro se litigant whose habeas

petition challenges conditions of confinement is “entitled to have his action treated

as a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act.”), in this case, Petitioner already has

a pending petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 which cannot be converted to a civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that

this motion be denied without prejudice to raising this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

in a civil rights action.

To the extent Petitioner is attempting to enjoin Defendants from forcibly

medicating him, and require that he be transferred to a new facility, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that the injunction be denied, as it lies outside the issues in suit.

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 25 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 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 -3-

An injunction is appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character

as which may be granted finally, and relief is not proper when requested on matters

lying wholly outside the issues in suit. DeBeers Consol. Mines v. United States., 325

U.S. 212, 220 (1945); Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir.),

amended, 131 F.3d 950 (11th Cir.1997). To obtain injunctive relief, the party "must

necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion

and the conduct asserted in the complaint." Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471

(8th Cir.1994). Petitioner has not established that relationship. Petitioner’s request

for an injunction is inappropriate as it lies wholly outside the issues in this suit.

Petitioner’s motion concerns events that are unrelated to the subject of his complaint

and that concerns conduct of persons other than the Defendants. Petitioner’s request

should therefore be denied. 

In Petitioner’s second motion, he requests that this Court order the state court

“to restore his 30+motions lawfully filed over a two year period and

unconstitutionally pulled from the trial record after sentencing...” (Doc. No. 20, at 1)

Again, Petitioner has not established a relationship between the injunctive relief

requested and the subject of his complaint. Petitioner has not established how this

request relates to any of his habeas claims. The cornerstone of the holding in DeBeers

is that the injunctive relief must be the subject of the provision of a final decree in this

suit. DeBeers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. at 220. Restoration of the record is not a form

of relief granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule

1.17(d)(2), Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona,

the Magistrate Judge recommends that the “Motion to Enjoin, Es-Stop, Remove”

(Doc. No. 19) and “Motion to Restore Record) (Doc. No. 20) be denied without

prejudice to raising either claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in a civil rights action.

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 25 Filed 05/19/08 Page 3 of 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 -4-

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections

within ten days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.

A party may respond to another party's objections within ten days after being served

with a copy thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). If objections are filed, the parties should

use the following case number: CV 07-1461-PHX-MHM.

If objections are not timely filed, then the parties' right to de novo review by

the District Court may be deemed waived. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc). 

DATED this 19th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 25 Filed 05/19/08 Page 4 of 4