N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C HR ISTOPHER

JAM ES HENSON, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OR IZON HEALTH, INC .; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s,
a nd STEW AR T, Unknown; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts. No. 20-15986 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-04396-M TL-DM F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na M ic ha e l T. Liburdi, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 7, 2022 Phoe nix, Ariz ona 

# FIL ED
FEB 11 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : GR AB E R a nd M ILLER , C i rc uit Judge s, a n d FITZW ATER , ** Distric t Judge
. C onc urre nc e by

Judge FITZW ATER Pla intiff C hristophe r Ja m e s He n son, who is c urre n tly c onfine d to prison in Ariz ona , brings this a c tion pursua nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983. The distric t c ourt de nie d Pla i ntiff’ s m otion for a

pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. W e re vie w “ the de nia l of a pre l im ina ry injunc tion for a

buse of disc re tion,” Pla

y m a ke rs LLC v. ESPN, Inc ., 376 F.3d 894, 896 (9th C ir. 2004), a n d re v ie w unde rly ing issue s of la w de novo, Doe s 1–5 v. C ha

ndle r, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th C ir. 1996). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt rule d, a m ong othe r things, tha

t Pla intiff’ s e x c l usive
re m e dy is a

pe t ition for ha

be a s c orpus insofa

r a s he se e ks im

m e diate re le a se from
c onfine m e nt. Im

m e diate re le a s e is the only re lie f tha t Pla intiff is pursuing through this a ppe a l. Ha

be a s re vie w a nd a

§ 1983 a c tion a

re “ inde pe nde n t a

nd m utua lly
e xc lusive ” pa ths for prisone rs who se e k re lie f. Ne ttle s v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 932 (9th C i r. 2016) (e n

ba nc ). If the “ c la im

c ha lle nge s the fa c t or dura tion of the
. . . se nte nc e ,” the n ha be a s is the only

a va ila ble re m e dy . Id. at 934; se e a lso W ilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005) (c onc luding tha

t a sta te prisone r
m a y not bring a

§ 1983 a c tion if suc c e ss would ne c e ssa rily de m onstra

te the

* * The Honora

ble Sidne y

A. Fitz wa te r, Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Te xa s , sitting by de signa tion. 2inva lidity

of the dura tion of c onfine m e nt). As he fra m e s it, Pla intiff’ s c la im
c ha lle nge s the fa c t a

nd the dura tion of his c onfine m e nt. For tha t re a son, we a gre e with the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion. To the e xte nt tha

t Pla intiff se e ks othe r form s of re lie f pe rta ining to the
c onditions of his c onfine m e nt, suc h a s a m a nda tory injunc tion re q

uiring the prison to unde rta ke m ore rigorous C OVID-19 protoc ols, or da m a g e s for pa st ha

rm , he
re m a ins fre e to do so. AFFIRM E D.

3He nson v . C orizon He alth, Inc ., e t al. , No. 20-15986 FITZW ATER , Distric t Judge , c onc urring: I join the p a ne l m e m ora ndum
. I w rite se pa ra te ly to point out a

na rrowe r ba sis on whic h the distric t c ourt c a n be a ffirm e d.

“ [W ] e m a y a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord.” Big C ountry Foods, Inc

. v . Bd. of E

duc

. of A nc horage Sc h. Dist. , 868 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th C ir. 1989) (a ffirm ing de nia l of pre lim i na ry injunc tion on a ba sis that wa s not re lie d o n by the distric t c ourt). In Pla i ntiff’ s a m e nde d c om pla int, he sought m one y da m a ge s to re m e dy pa st E ighth Am e ndm e nt viola tions for a l le ge dly ina deq u at e p rison m e dic a l c a re . In his pre lim ina

ry injunc tion a

pplic a tion, he sought im

m e diate re le a se d

ue to t h e st ate prison’ s a l l eg ed ina

bility to prote c t him from C O VID-19. The distric t c ourt did not
a buse its disc re tion by d e ny ing Pla intiff’ s pre lim i na ry injunc tion a

p plic a tion, a nd his
m otion for re c onside ra t ion, whe re the re wa s no re la tionship be twe e n t h e i njury
c la im e d in the m otion for injunc tive re lie f a nd the c onduc t a s se rte d in t he unde rly ing
am e nde d c om

pla int. Se e P ac . Radiation Onc ology , LLC v . Que e n’s Me d. Ct r . , 8 1 0 F.3d 631, 636 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ W e hold that the re m ust be a re la tionship be twe e n the injury c la im e d in the m otion f o r i n j u n ctive re l ie f a nd the c onduc t a sse rte d in the unde rly ing c om

pla int.” ). Assum ing that Pla i ntiff c orre c t ed t h is de fic ie nc y in his
se c o nd a m e nde d c om

p la int, t ha t ple a ding wa s not on file whe n the distric t c ourt de nie d his pre lim i na

ry i njunc tion ap p l i ca tion. He only obta ine d l e a ve to file that 

# FIL ED
FEB 11 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSple a ding in t h e sa m e orde r in whic h the distric t c ourt de n ie d his m otion for

re c o nside ra tion. B e c a use the d istric t c o u rt’ s orde r c a n b e a ffirm e d o n this na rrowe r ba sis, I join the p a ne l m e m o ra n d

um a nd c o nc ur.

- 2 -