Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01461/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01461-3/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

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

ORDER

Petitioner Wayne M. Miller (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(the “petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on July 30, 2007. Petitioner has twice amended

his petition, on October 4, 2007 and November 28, 2007 (Dkt. #7, Dkt. #10). Petitioner filed

a Motion to Enjoin, Es-stop, Remove (Dkt. #19) on March 11, 2008 and a Motion to Restore

Record” (Dkt. #20) on March 24, 2008. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge

Bernardo P. Velasco who issued a Report and Recommendation on May 19, 2008,

recommending that the Court deny both of Petitioner’s motions without prejudice. Petitioner

filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 2, 2008 (Dkt. #26).

Respondents have not filed any opposition to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 38 Filed 03/03/09 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 1

This motion appears to have been docketed twice.

- 2 -

has since filed an additional motion, Motion to Consider Exhibits in Totality, on September

3, 2008 (Dkt. #34, 36).1

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The District Court must review the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reina-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc); See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

or recommendations to which objection is made”). “Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact.” Jones v. Wood, 207

F.3d 557, 562 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000).

DISCUSSION

The Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner’s Motion to Enjoin, Es-stop,

Remove and Motion to Restore Record be denied without prejudice. (Dkt. #25). In

opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Petitioner filed an

objection. (Dkt. #26). Petitioner’s objection relates only to his Motion to Enjoin, Es-stop,

Remove. Specifically, Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations related

to “the court’s dismissal of his civil rights claim added to his habeas corpus petition,” and

the court’s denial of his request to enjoin forcible medication and request for transfer. (Dkt.

#26 at 1, 3). Upon such review, the Court finds Petitioner’s objection to be unpersuasive and

that the record supports the denial of the motion. The Court will address both of these

portions of the objection in turn.

I. Motion to Enjoin, Es-Stop, Remove

A. Petitioner’s Attempt to Amend His Petition to Add a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim

Petitioner contends that the Court should not dismiss his civil rights claim “added to

his habeas corpus petition” because special circumstances exist that require “prompt federal

intervention of state confinement,” namely the prison’s alleged forcible medication of

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 38 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

Petitioner, implantation of a microchip against Petitioner’s will, and microwaving of

Petitioner. (Dkt. #26 at 1-2).

In reviewing the record de novo, Petitioner does not offer a persuasive argument as

to why this Court should grant his Motion to Enjoin, Es-stop, Remove. As noted by the

Magistrate Judge, Petitioner has already filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which has

been amended twice since the original filing. (Dkt. #1, Dkt. #7, Dkt. #10). The purpose of

Petitioner’s second amended petition, which was filed November 28, 2007, is undoubtedly

to reverse Petitioner’s conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and only raises issues from his

criminal trial as a basis for reversal. The second amended petition does not raise a civil

rights cause of action. In fact, nothing in the most recent petition mentions prison conditions.

(Dkt. #10). 

This Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Petitioner’s claim under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 cannot be converted to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. “Habeas corpus proceedings

are the proper mechanism for a prisoner 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)). “A civil rights action, in contrast, is the proper method of

challenging ‘conditions of . . . confinement.’” Id. (citing Preiser at 498-499). The Court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this motion be denied without

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

B. Petitioner’s Attempt to Enjoin Forcible Medication and Request for Transfer

This Court also conducted a de novo review of the record regarding Petitioner’s

request to be transferred to the Maricopa County Medical Center and his attempt to enjoin

prison staff from forcibly medicating him. As previously stated, the issues in Petitioner’s suit

are limited to those related to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as enumerated in his second amended

petition. As the Magistrate Judge noted, an injunction is only fitting when the intermediate

relief that it grants is of the same character as the relief that may be granted finally, and relief

is improper when requested for matters that are wholly outside issues in the petition.

DeBeers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945); Kaimowitz v. Orlando,

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 38 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir.), amended, 131 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1997). Before obtaining

injunctive relief, the party must “establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the

party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Harrington, 42 F.3d

470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). Petitioner did not establish any relationship between the injury

claimed in his petition and his Motion to Enjoin, Es-stop, Remove. As the Magistrate Judge

correctly notes, Petitioner’s Motion to Enjoin, Es-stop, Remove concerns events unrelated

to the issues presented in his second amended petition and furthermore, it concerns conduct

of persons other than Defendants. 

The Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Petitioner’s Motion

to Enjoin, Es-stop, Remove be denied without prejudice.

II. Petitioner’s Motion to Restore Record

The Magistrate Judge considered Petitioner’s Motion to Restore Record in his Report

and Recommendation and recommended that it be denied. Because Petitioner did not object

to this denial, this Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s

determination. Jones, 207 F.3d 557 at 562. In the absence of an objection to a portion of the

Report and Recommendation, the Court “must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error

on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life

& Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory

Committee Note). This Court finds no clear error and will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation that Petitioner’s Motion to Restore Record be denied without prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation in its entirety. (Dkt. #25). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice Petitioner’s Motion to

Enjoin, Es-Stop, Remove. (Dkt. #19).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice Petitioner’s Motion to

Restore Record. (Dkt. #20).

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 38 Filed 03/03/09 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Petitioner’s Motion to Consider Exhibits in

Totality. (Dkt. #34, 36).

 DATED this 1st day of March, 2009. 

Case 2:07-cv-01461-MHM Document 38 Filed 03/03/09 Page 5 of 5