Charles Chambers v. Jay Cassady

PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate Charles Chambers— who is serving a 10-year state prison sentence for second-degree robbery — filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition claiming that the state trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea. During the proceedings below, Chambers filed a motion under the All Writs Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651, requesting a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief related to prison policies on legal assistance and supplies. He appeals the district court’s 1 interlocutory order denying his motion. The denial of a temporary restraining order is not immediately appealable. See Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir.1994). While we have jurisdiction to review the denial of injunctive relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling. First, the requested injunction and Chambers’s section 2254 petition concerned different subject matter. See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir.1994). Second, relief under the All Writs Act is only available to parties who lack an adequate alternative remedy, see In re Montes, 677 F.2d 415, 416 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam); and an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is available to a prisoner who claims that prison policies on legal assistance and supplies have resulted in a denial of access to the courts and have caused an actual injury to the prisoner. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Accordingly, we affirm. Chambers’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris on appeal is granted, and his motion to stay is denied as moot. Footnotes [1] The Honorable M. Douglas Haipool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.