Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00734/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00734-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Vicklund has not been served. (Doc. 31.)

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Keith P. Nance,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Allen Miser, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-0734-PHX-RCB (DKD)

O R D E R

 Plaintiff Keith P. Nance, an inmate in the custody of the Arizona Department of

Corrections (ADC), filed this pro se civil rights action. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff has filed an

“Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order,”

which Defendants oppose.1

 (Docs. 22, 27.) The Court will deny the motion.

I. Background

On screening the First Amended Complaint, the Court determined that Plaintiff

sufficiently stated a claim against ADC employees Miser, Vicklund, Linderman, and Patton

for denial of a Halal diet and a shaving waiver in violation of his religious exercise and equal

protection rights. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief.

II. Preliminary Injunction

A. Legal Standard

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and “one that should

Case 2:12-cv-00734-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 5
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 -

not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A.

Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, pp. 129-130 (2d ed. 1995)). An

injunction 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 Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The movant has the burden of

proof on each element of the test. Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F.

Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). A Request for a TRO is governed by the same

general standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor

Vehicle Bd. V. Orrin W. Fox. Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n. 2 (1977); Los Angeles Unified

Sch. Dist. V. U.S. Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Under the “serious questions” version of the sliding-scale test, a preliminary

injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates that “serious questions going to the

merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [plaintiff’s] favor.” Alliance

for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F. 3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011), citing Lands

Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). This approach requires that

the elements of the preliminary injunction test be balanced, so that a stronger showing of one

element may offset a weaker showing of another. “‘[S]erious questions going to the merits’

and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a

preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of

irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 1135

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) also imposes requirements on prisoner

litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. “Preliminary

injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary

to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Thus, § 3626(a)(2) limits the court’s power

Case 2:12-cv-00734-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/20/12 Page 2 of 5
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 -

to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates; “no longer may courts grant or approve

relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore

v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000).

Generally, 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” (id., citing Kaimowitz v. Orlando,

Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997)). 

B. Plaintiff’s Contentions

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order prohibiting Defendants, their agents, or

employees from transferring him from his present location in South Unit in Florence,

Arizona. (Doc. 22 at 2.) He asserts that he has the right to petition for redress of grievances

without retaliation and that retaliation for addressing free exercise of religion violates the

Constitution. He argues that to justify transfers, a regulation must protect an important or

substantial interest of the prison and be necessary to achieving that interest. Plaintiff asserts,

on information and belief, that in the past, prisoners have been placed in administrative

segregation without cause, denied proper food or hygiene items, transferred to another prison,

and had their legal papers intercepted because they engaged in protected conduct. He claims

that he lives in fear of adverse action as a result of his protected conduct. (Id.)

Plaintiff addresses the elements of a preliminary injunction. (Id. at 4-9.) As to

irreparable harm, he asserts that because the ADC religious-dietary program places

significant pressure on inmates to abandon their religious beliefs by forcing them to eat nonHalal diets, it imposes a substantial burden on his religious practice and that he will suffer

irreparable harm. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff submits a lengthy affidavit setting out the facts of his

underlying case.

 Defendants respond. (Doc. 27.) They assert that Plaintiff’s motion seeks to enjoin

ADC, a non-party, from transferring Plaintiff because he believes that other inmates have

been discriminated against for filing lawsuits. (Id. at 2.) They contend that they are unaware

of any plans to transfer Plaintiff. They attach the declaration of Stacy Crabtree, Correctional

Administrator V overseeing institutional assignment of inmates, which confirms this. (Id.

Case 2:12-cv-00734-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/20/12 Page 3 of 5
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 -

at 3.) They also argue that Plaintiff has not demonstrated irreparable harm. (Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff replies that in Abdullah v. Ryan, CV-08-255-TUC-CKJ, the inmate/plaintiff

received an order enjoining the defendant ADC officials from further disciplining him, where

the disciplinary action had led to reclassification and a transfer from a security-Level III to

a security-Level IV unit. (Doc. 32 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that his own rights continue to be

violated by denial of his religious diet. (Id. at 3, 6.) He also alleges that his right of access

to the court has been compromised when mail from the Department of Justice was opened

outside his presence. (Id. at 3, 6.)

C. Analysis

The Court will deny the motion. The motion is not of the same character as the issues

in the lawsuit, does not attribute any alleged misconduct to Defendants, and fails to

demonstrate at least one of the elements necessary for a preliminary injunction—irreparable

harm.

 As noted, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief

regarding denial of a Halal diet. Plaintiff now seeks an order prohibiting a transfer based on

his information and belief as to treatment of other, unnamed inmates who have filed lawsuits.

Likewise, to the extent Plaintiff complains about his mail, that is not the issue in the lawsuit,

and the motion seeks no relief regarding the mail. In addition, Plaintiff makes no showing

that the mail problems were related to the filing of his lawsuit, and he raises the matter for

the first time in his reply. See Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1066 n.5 (9th Cir.

2003) (declining to consider an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief). Moreover, a

prisoner has no constitutional right to enjoy a particular security classification or to be

housed in a particular facility. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976) (no liberty

interest protected by the Due Process Clause is implicated in a prison’s reclassification and

transfer decisions). 

 To meet the irreparable harm requirement, Plaintiff must do more than simply allege

that he fears retaliation; he must demonstrate imminent harm from failure to provide the

requested relief. See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th

Case 2:12-cv-00734-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/20/12 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

Cir. 1988). This requires Plaintiff to demonstrate by specific facts that there is a credible

threat of immediate and irreparable harm to him. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Mere “[s]peculative

injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary

injunction.” Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674. Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that

he is in danger of being transferred for retaliatory purposes. He argues that he is irreparably

harmed by denial of a Halal diet, but that is not the relief he seeks in his “Order to Show

Cause for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.” 

As to Abdullah, CV-08-255-TUC-CKJ, Plaintiff is correct that the Court entered a

preliminary injunction in that case, which involved a shaving regulation that the plaintiff, a

practicing Muslim, asserted violated his religious exercise. (Doc. 104.) But the injunction

was issued only after the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was denied as to the

plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and where the record showed that the plaintiff had

received numerous disciplinary tickets for violating the shaving policy. (Id., docs. 74, 104

at 1-2.) Plaintiff here has not shown that he is threatened with irreparable harm or any actual

harm.

Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied.

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

Plaintiff’s “Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining

Order” (Doc. 22) and it is denied.

DATED this 20th day of December, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00734-SMM Document 35 Filed 12/20/12 Page 5 of 5