United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER (#81)
PAGE KELLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE DISTRICT JUDGE
reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that
Petitioner's motion for a restraining order (#81) be
Dashan Wright commenced this action by filing a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
challenging his Massachusetts convictions. At present, he is
serving the sentences for those convictions at the Ely State
Prison in Ely, Nevada.
March 30, 2018, Petitioner filed a “Motion for
Restraining Order on Caseworker Oxborrow and Co-Workers at
Ely State Prison” (#81). He claims that Caseworker
Oxborrow and others employed at the Ely State Prison
“have systematically cut off all [his] outside
communications and have attempted to rig [his] phone
calls” so that he is only allowed to call an individual
named Emmanuel Smith. Mot. at 1. Petitioner represents that,
at one time, he had been friends with Smith when they were
both incarcerated in Massachusetts. However, Smith allegedly
became an informant, and, even after his release, continues
to participate in a purported “scheme operation”
by Nevada and Massachusetts authorities to “micromanage
and sabotage Petitioner's activities.” Id.
at 2. Petitioner claims “this long distance
exploitation will continue to have an adverse and prejudicial
effect on [his] pursuit for justice.” Id. at
2-3. Petitioner further avers that he had “similar
communication problems” when he was previously assigned
to a unit overseen by Caseworker Oxborrow. Id. at 3.
undersigned recommends denial of the motion on the ground of
lack of personal jurisdiction over Caseworker Oxborrow and
the other employees of Ely State Prison.
jurisdiction refers to a court's “power to require
the parties to obey its [orders].” Hannon v.
Beard, 524 F.3d 275, 279 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting
Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Lodaholt, Richardson, &
Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 50 (1st Cir. 2002)). The due
process clause of the United States Constitution
“protects an individual's liberty interest in not
being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which
he has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or
relations.'” Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985) (quoting
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 319
(1945)). Therefore, a court is precluded from asserting
personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless “the
defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State
are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled
into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980).
there are no allegations from which the Court may reasonably
infer that Caseworker Oxborrow, or any other person employed
at the Ely State Prison, has had meaningful contacts with
Massachusetts, such that he or she would anticipate being
haled into court in this District to respond to allegations
concerning conditions of confinement in a Nevada prison.
Petitioner's allegations concerning a “scheme
operation” between Massachusetts and Nevada authorities
are conclusory and vague, and therefore cannot be credited
when addressing the question of personal jurisdiction. In the
absence of personal jurisdiction over those whom Petitioner
seeks to enjoin, the Court cannot provide the requested
this habeas action concerns the validity of Petitioner's
conviction and sentence. In contrast, the present motion
concerns prison conditions. A proceeding for a writ of habeas
corpus is not a vehicle for challenging conditions of
confinement. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749,
750 (2004) (per curiam) (“Challenges to the validity of
any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are
the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on
circumstances of confinement may be presented in a [42
U.S.C.] § 1983 action.”) (citation omitted)).
For the foregoing reasons, I RECOMMEND that Petitioner's
Motion for Restraining Order on Caseworker Oxborrow and
Co-Workers at Ely State Prison (#81) be DENIED.
REVIEW BY DISTRICT JUDGE
parties are hereby advised that any party who objects to this
recommendation must file specific written objections with the
Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the party's receipt
of this Report and Recommendation. The objections must
specifically identify the portion of the recommendation to
which objections are made and state the basis for such
objections. The parties are further advised that the United
States Court of Appeals for this Circuit has repeatedly
indicated that failure to comply with Rule 72(b), Fed. R.
Civ. P., shall preclude further appellate review. See
Keating v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs.,
848 F.2d 271 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v. Emiliano
Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986); Scott
v. Schweiker, 702 F.2d 13, ...