Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08002/USCOURTS-azd-3_23-cv-08002-0/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

MGD

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marzet Farris, III,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Ryan Thornell, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-23-08002-PCT-JAT (JFM)

ORDER

Petitioner Marzet Farris, III has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion Requiring 

Respondents Furnish Associated Case Law for All Citations Incorporated Within Any 

Respondent Filing,” which the Court construes as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

(Doc. 6.) The Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion without prejudice.

I. Motion

In his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Petitioner seeks an order requiring 

Respondents’ counsel to attach copies of all caselaw cited by Respondents in their filings 

in this matter. (Doc. 6.) Alternatively, Petitioner asks the Court to order “Respondent’s 

agents” at Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma, Cheyenne Unit, to provide him with 

access to Lexis Nexis and Westlaw databases or order the librarians at Petitioner’s prison 

complex to provide Petitioner with copies of all decisions cited in Respondents’ filings. 

(Id. at 4.) Petitioner argues that not granting this relief “would only serve to impede [him] 

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 32 Filed 07/24/23 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

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

from properly addressing his claims or perfecting a proper pleading . . . while equally 

prejudicing his standing and integrity before this Court” and “would almost certainly 

hamper [the Court’s] own procedural and functional effectiveness in its pursuit of the 

interests of justice.” (Id.)

Respondents argue the Court should deny the Motion because Petitioner fails to 

demonstrate any prejudice, does not allege he requested or has been denied, access to 

caselaw or other legal materials from the prison law library, and he does not argue that the 

prison’s law library is inadequate to allow him to fully reply to Respondents’ forthcoming 

answer to his habeas petition.1 (Doc. 9 at 1.) Respondents argue that any prejudice to 

Petitioner at this point is entirely speculative. (Id.) 

Petitioner replies that prejudice “has not only been wholly demonstrated and 

fervently implied within [his] Motion but was and remains self-evident for most logical 

and reasonable minds to recognize.” (Doc. 10 at 1.) Petitioner argues that “very distinct 

prejudice and harm” exists given that he does not have the resources and materials 

“required to properly disseminate, investigate, study and/or refute Respondent’s 

forthcoming challenges absent the complimentary associated caselaw hard copies.” (Id.) 

Petitioner further asserts that prison policies “strictly prohibit librarians, educators, 

departmental staff, et al., from providing and/or distributing caselaw to prisoners,” the only 

items available to Petitioner are those contained in Department Order 902, and only .005% 

of the prison library’s inventory is devoted to legal resources. (Id. at 4.)

II. Legal Standard

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

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

Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 

U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy 

1 Petitioner filed this Motion early in this action, and the Motion was fully briefed 

before Respondents filed their Answer to the Petition. 

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 32 Filed 07/24/23 Page 2 of 5
- 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

never awarded as of right”). Nonetheless, “federal courts must not shrink from their 

obligation to enforce the constitutional rights of all persons, including prisoners” and must 

not “allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve 

intrusion into the realm of prison administration.” Porretti v. Dzurenda, 11 F.4th 1037, 

1047 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).

A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure must show: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer 

irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his 

favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 

Where a plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction, rather than a prohibitory injunction, 

injunctive relief is “subject to a higher standard” and is “permissible when ‘extreme or very 

serious damage will result’ that is not ‘capable of compensation in damages,’ and the merits 

of the case are not ‘doubtful.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 999 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(quoting Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 

(9th Cir. 2009)). Further, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, injunctive relief must 

be narrowly drawn and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm. 18 

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 

2000).

A court may issue an injunction against a non-party only where the non-party acts 

in active concert or participation with an enjoined party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (a 

preliminary injunction only binds those who receive actual notice of it by personal service 

or are parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and persons in 

active concert); see Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may 

issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter 

jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before 

the court.”); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 

(1969).

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 32 Filed 07/24/23 Page 3 of 5
- 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

The Court lacks jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief that are not related to 

the claims pleaded in the operative complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. 

Queen’s Med. Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[w]hen a plaintiff seeks 

injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the 

authority to issue an injunction”); see also Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th 

Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (a party seeking injunctive relief must establish a relationship 

between the claimed injury and the conduct asserted in the complaint).

III. Discussion

As stated, a court generally does not have authority to issue an injunction for relief 

on claims not pled in the underlying complaint. But an exception to this rule arises where 

the injunctive relief sought is related to a prisoner’s access to the courts. See Prince v. 

Schriro, et al., CV 08-1299-PHX-SRB, 2009 WL 1456648, at *4 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009) 

(where the relief sought relates to a prisoner’s access to the court, “a nexus between the 

preliminary relief and the ultimate relief sought is not required[,]” and the court need not 

consider the merits of the underlying complaint) (citing Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 

793, 796 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts, protected by the First 

Amendment right to petition and the Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due 

process. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on other 

grounds by Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.2 (9th Cir. 2015). This right is limited 

to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and Section 1983 civil rights actions. Lewis v. 

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). The constitutional right of access to the courts 

encompasses a right to litigate without active interference. See Silva, 658 F.3d at 1102. 

To support an active interference claim, a prisoner must allege facts showing that officials’ 

actions hindered the ability to litigate and that, as a result, the prisoner suffered an actual 

injury. Id.; see Lewis, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (to maintain an access-to-the-courts claim, 

a prisoner must show an “actual injury” resulting from the defendant’s actions). Actual 

injury must be “actual prejudice . . . such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to 

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 32 Filed 07/24/23 Page 4 of 5
- 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

present a claim.” Lewis, 518 at 348–49; see Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 

2004) (defining actual injury as the “inability to file a complaint or defend against a 

charge”). The failure to allege an actual injury is “fatal.” Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 

1155 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[f]ailure to show that a ‘non-frivolous legal claim had been 

frustrated’ is fatal”) (quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.4). Further, in alleging denial of 

the right of access to the courts, specificity is required. Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 

1317 (4th Cir. 1996). 

Petitioner’s claim regarding lack of legal caselaw implicates his right of access to 

the courts such that the Court may consider the Motion. Nevertheless, Petitioner’s Motion 

fails to allege an actual injury. Petitioner has already filed his Petition, in which he 

articulated the factual and legal basis for his claims. (See Doc. 1.) Petitioner does not 

allege that he has missed a filing deadline or been unable to prepare legal documents due 

to the lack of caselaw. As such, Petitioner has not satisfied the specificity requirement for 

supporting an access-to-the-courts claim, and the Court will deny the Motion. 

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

Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 6), and the Motion is denied.

Dated this 21st day of July, 2023.

Case 3:23-cv-08002-JAT Document 32 Filed 07/24/23 Page 5 of 5