Christopher Henson v. Corizon Health, Inc. ( 2022 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 11 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER JAMES HENSON, No. 20-15986
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:19-cv-04396-MTL-DMF
v.
CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees,
and
STEWART, Unknown; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2022
Phoenix, Arizona
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: GRABER and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,** District
Judge.
Concurrence by Judge FITZWATER
Plaintiff Christopher James Henson, who is currently confined to prison in
Arizona, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. We review “the denial of a
preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion,” Playmakers LLC v. ESPN, Inc.,
376 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 2004), and review underlying issues of law de novo,
Does 1–5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court ruled, among other things, that Plaintiff’s exclusive
remedy is a petition for habeas corpus insofar as he seeks immediate release from
confinement. Immediate release is the only relief that Plaintiff is pursuing through
this appeal. Habeas review and a § 1983 action are “independent and mutually
exclusive” paths for prisoners who seek relief. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922,
932 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). If the “claim challenges the fact or duration of
the . . . sentence,” then habeas is the only available remedy. Id. at 934; see also
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005) (concluding that a state prisoner
may not bring a § 1983 action if success would necessarily demonstrate the
**
The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
2
invalidity of the duration of confinement). As he frames it, Plaintiff’s claim
challenges the fact and the duration of his confinement. For that reason, we agree
with the district court’s conclusion.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks other forms of relief pertaining to the
conditions of his confinement, such as a mandatory injunction requiring the prison
to undertake more rigorous COVID-19 protocols, or damages for past harm, he
remains free to do so.
AFFIRMED.
3
FILED
Henson v. Corizon Health, Inc., et al., No. 20-15986
FEB 11 2022
FITZWATER, District Judge, concurring: MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
I join the panel memorandum. I write separately to point out a narrower basis
on which the district court can be affirmed.
“[W]e may affirm on any ground supported by the record.” Big Country Foods,
Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of Anchorage Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989)
(affirming denial of preliminary injunction on a basis that was not relied on by the
district court). In Plaintiff’s amended complaint, he sought money damages to remedy
past Eighth Amendment violations for allegedly inadequate prison medical care. In
his preliminary injunction application, he sought immediate release due to the state
prison’s alleged inability to protect him from COVID-19. The district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction application, and his
motion for reconsideration, where there was no relationship between the injury
claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying
amended complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810
F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We hold that there must be a relationship between the
injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the
underlying complaint.”). Assuming that Plaintiff corrected this deficiency in his
second amended complaint, that pleading was not on file when the district court
denied his preliminary injunction application. He only obtained leave to file that
pleading in the same order in which the district court denied his motion for
reconsideration.
Because the district court’s order can be affirmed on this narrower basis, I join
the panel memorandum and concur.
-2-