Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00685/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00685-0/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

James McArthur Washington, )

)

 Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) CV 06-685 PHX SMM (VAM)

)

Dora B. Schriro, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 )

 Respondents. )

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

Pending before the Court is petitioner's "REQUEST THAT THIS

COURT ORDER THE ADOC AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO DELAY

AND DESIST FROM TAMPERING/DESTROYING EVIDENCE." (Doc. 12).

In his motion, petitioner seeks a protective order asking

that the Court instruct respondents to: 

Delay and Desist from Tampering, Destroying, and/or

Retaliating Against the Petitioner, by and through

their threats to destroy Petitioner's case file,

consisting of twenty six (26) boxes of legal documents,

attorney notes, transcripts, motions, and other

essential documents currently being stored by the

Arizona State Prison - Safford/Graham, and which are

essential documents pertaining to his petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus ....

(Doc. 12 at pp. 1-2). Petitioner asserts that on June 28, 2006,

he was "interrogated" by "CIU Investigator Judd in regards to

evidence pertaining to [his] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." 

(Id. at p. 2). He claims Judd told him that Judd "conducted a

search of [petitioner's] legal boxes and found that the legal

Case 2:06-cv-00685-SMM Document 15 Filed 08/23/06 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

material directly related to this criminal case." He asserts

Judd told him "he intended to destroy his entire case file." 

Petitioner contends these files contain "evidence essential to

[his] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." (Id.).

Respondents oppose the request for a protective order. They

state that ADOC Order 902.10 "addresses, inter alia, storage and

access to legal material." They note that under this order

inmates may not keep more than three boxes of legal material in

their living area. They also note that any "excess" material

will be stored by ADOC. (Doc. 13 at p. 2). Respondents argue

that ADOC has no intention of destroying petitioner's case files

and that the motion for a protective order should be denied.

Petitioner's request for a protective order is injunctive in

nature. To prevail on his request, petitioner must show "(1) a

strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility

of irreparable injury to [petitioner] if preliminary relief is

not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring [petitioner],

and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases)." 

Earth Island Institute v. United States Forest Service, 442 F.3d

1147, 1158 (9th Cir. 2006). Alternatively, "a court may grant a

preliminary injunction if [petitioner] 'demonstrates either a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility

of irreparable harm or that serious questions are raised and the

balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.'" Id. (emphasis

in original).

In this case, petitioner has not satisfied any of the

standards required for injunctive relief. Petitioner does not

Case 2:06-cv-00685-SMM Document 15 Filed 08/23/06 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

explain the nature of the evidence in any detail other than

assert files at issue (26 boxes) are "related" to his habeas

petition. He does allege that respondents (via Investigator

Judd) wish to destroy all of these files.

Conversely, respondents note only that Department Order

902.10 requires that petitioner not keep more than three boxes of

case papers in his living area and that anything in excess be put

in storage. In addition, respondents have included a declaration

from ADOC Legal Access Monitor Johnson. Johnson states in the

declaration that he spoke to Investigator Judd and that Judd told

him he has no intention of "destroying" petitioner's "excess

legal material." 

In light of Johnson's "declaration," the Magistrate Judge

believes ADOC has no intention of "destroying" petitioner's case

files. As a result, petitioner has not met the burden of

establishing entitlement to a protective order and the motion

should be denied. However, the Court should require that ADOC

notify the Court if prison officials seek to destroy or discard

any of petitioner's files in the future. This will permit

petitioner to file a renewed motion for a protective order.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that petitioner's "REQUEST THAT

THIS COURT ORDER THE ADOC AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO

DELAY AND DESIST FROM TAMPERING/DESTROYING EVIDENCE" (Doc. 12) be

denied.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that respondents provide notice to

the Court before destroying or discarding any of the documentary

evidence (26 boxes) currently possessed by petitioner or in ADOC

Case 2:06-cv-00685-SMM Document 15 Filed 08/23/06 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

storage.

This Report and 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 Report and

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 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 an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. 

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00685-SMM Document 15 Filed 08/23/06 Page 4 of 4