Czekalski v. NH State Prison, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jason A. Czekalski
v. 	Civil No. 17-cv-064-JL
Michael A. Zenk, Warden,
New Hampshire State Prison
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court in connection with this petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is
petitioner Jason A. Czekalski’s motion (Doc. No. 7) for a
preliminary injunction to prevent the seizure of Czekalski’s
legal materials. 	The district judge referred that motion to the
magistrate judge for issuance of a report and recommendation.
See Feb. 9, 2018 Order (Doc. No. 8). 	A hearing on the motion
for a preliminary injunction was held on February 23, 2018, at
which petitioner appeared pro se, respondent appeared through
counsel, and evidence was presented through offers of proof.
Discussion
I. 	Preliminary Injunction Standard
“‘A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,” of the
claims in his action, “that he is likely to suffer irreparable
Case 1:17-cv-00064-JL Document 11 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 4

harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the
public interest.’” 	Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736
(2015) (citation omitted). 	The burden of proof is on the
movant. 	See Esso Std. Oil Co. v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 18
(1st Cir. 2006).
II. 	Likelihood of Success
“Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints
related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28
U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under . . . 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 	Challenges to the validity of any confinement or
to particulars affecting its duration are the province of
habeas corpus.” 	An inmate’s challenge to the circumstances
of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v.
Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam)). 	Where a habeas
petitioner “seeks relief unrelated to his habeas petition,” the
court generally “does not have jurisdiction to consider such
claims as part of a habeas petition.” 	Kyricopoulos v. Murphy,
No. 16-cv-12431-IT, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46643, at *4, 2017 WL
1190376, at *2 (D. Mass. Mar. 29, 2017); see also Gray v. Zenk,
No. 15-cv-508-LM, 2017 WL 3595512, at *2–*3, 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 134157, at *5-*6 (D.N.H. Aug. 1, 2017) (request for
injunctive relief to prevent prison officials from withholding
or destroying petitioner’s legal materials is not properly
considered in habeas action), R&R approved, 2017 WL 3601231,
2
Case 1:17-cv-00064-JL Document 11 Filed 03/02/18 Page 2 of 4

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132995 (D.N.H. Aug. 18, 2017).
Czekalski’s request for a preliminary injunction seeks
relief on a prison conditions claim that is not properly granted
in this § 2254 petition. 	As such, petitioner cannot demonstrate
that he is likely to succeed on the merits of that civil rights
claim in this case. 	Accordingly, the motion for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. No. 7) should be denied, without prejudice to
petitioner’s ability to litigate issues relating to restrictions
on his access to legal materials, and to seek injunctive relief
on those issues, in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 	In addition, the February 9 Order (Doc. No. 8) should
be vacated, in part, to the extent it concerns respondent’s
seizure of Czekalski’s legal materials.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny
the motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 7), without
prejudice to petitioner’s ability to litigate and seek such
relief on the underlying prison conditions claim in a civil
rights action, and the February 9 Order (Doc. No. 8) should be
vacated to the extent consistent with this Report and
Recommendation.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
3
Case 1:17-cv-00064-JL Document 11 Filed 03/02/18 Page 3 of 4

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Failure to file objections within the specified
time waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
March 2, 2018
cc: 	Jason A. Czekalski, pro se
Francis Fredericks, Esq.
Elizabeth Woodcock, Esq.
4
Case 1:17-cv-00064-JL Document 11 Filed 03/02/18 Page 4 of 4