Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02944/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02944-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

Terry Lee Lacy, )

)

 Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) CV 05-2944 PHX SMM (VAM)

)

Darla Elliott, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

 Respondents. )

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE.

Pending before the Court are petitioner's "Petition for

'Extension of Time to Submit Proper Legal Documents to the Arizona

Supreme Court,'" (Doc. 10), and "MOTION FOR INJUNCTION." (Doc.

11). 

In both motions, petitioner raises essentially the same

claim. In his "Petition for 'Extension of Time to Submit Proper

Legal Documents to the Arizona Supreme Court" (Doc. 10), he

asserts his right of access to the courts and right to due process

have been violated because prison officials have not responded in

a timely way to his requests that he be allowed to make

photocopies of certain unidentified "legal documents" for

submission to the Arizona Supreme Court. Similarly, in his

"Motion for Injunction" petitioner asserts various prison

officials have denied his right of access to the courts by

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 13 Filed 02/01/06 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

"placing [him] in delay status to access the Courts by either

delaying or obstructing and keeping [him] from achieving

photocopies on time, and from doing legal research." (Doc. 11 at

p. 1). 

To the extent petitioner asserts he is being denied his

rights to due process of law and of access to the courts, his

claims are not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. 

Petitioner may only raise claims challenging the validity of his

conviction and/or sentence in a federal habeas petition. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). If he believes prison officials are violating

his rights to due process of law and of access to the courts,

petitioner must raise such claims in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For all these reasons, the motion

is without merit.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that petitioner's "PETITION FOR

'EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT PROPER LEGAL DOCUMENTS TO THE ARIZONA

SUPREME COURT' (Doc. 10) and "MOTION FOR INJUNCTION" (Doc. 11) be

denied. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of

appeal filed pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s

order and judgment. The parties shall have ten (10) days from the

date of service of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the

objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 13 Filed 02/01/06 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 3

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver

of a party's right to de novo consideration of the factual issues

and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate

review of the findings of fact in and order or judgment entered

pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

 DATED this 31st day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02944-SMM Document 13 Filed 02/01/06 Page 3 of 3