Bierbrauer v. Zahn
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-03812
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Bierbrauer v. Zahn, Judge Foster denied Bierbrauer’s temporary restraining-order motion because he did not show likely irreparable harm.
Brandon Bierbrauer’s request for emergency restrictions against Dennis Zahn and Zahn’s canine partner was denied; the opinion did not resolve Bierbrauer’s underlying constitutional claims.
What happened
In Bierbrauer v. Zahn, inmate Brandon Bierbrauer asked the court to restrict Minnesota Department of Corrections employee Dennis Zahn because he feared Zahn or Zahn’s canine partner would harm him.
Bierbrauer said the canine had previously attacked him and that Zahn had threatened him. The court explained that this extraordinary type of emergency order requires evidence of a likely, serious harm that cannot later be repaired, among other factors.
Judge Foster denied the motion because Bierbrauer’s statements did not show a plausible ongoing threat or constitutional violation, and his concern about future harm was speculative. The court also noted that requests affecting prison administration require caution.
The detailed version
- Bierbrauer v. Zahn · No. 0:24-cv-03812
- Dulce J. Foster
- July 8, 2025
Background
Brandon Bierbrauer, an inmate at the Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater, filed a complaint alleging that Dennis Zahn, a Minnesota Department of Corrections employee, violated his constitutional rights. Bierbrauer alleged that Zahn’s canine partner wrongfully attacked him and that Zahn threatened him in May 2024.
On January 31, 2025, Bierbrauer filed a self-styled motion for a temporary restraining order. He asked the court to impose a restraining order against Zahn because he feared that Zahn or the canine partner would harm him.
Legal standard
A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary emergency remedy. The court considers four factors: the likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm, meaning harm that cannot adequately be repaired later; the balance between that harm and the injury an order might cause others; the likelihood of success on the underlying claim; and the public interest. A failure to show irreparable harm independently supports denying the requested relief. Requests affecting prison administration must also be evaluated with particular caution.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court found that Bierbrauer’s conclusory statement that he feared future harm, based on the alleged canine attack more than a year earlier, did not establish a plausible threat of irreparable harm. Bierbrauer did not allege an ongoing constitutional violation or ongoing conduct, and the court characterized his concern about additional harm as speculative. Because he did not establish a plausible risk of irreparable harm, the court could not find that the extraordinary relief was appropriate. The court also emphasized the need for judicial restraint because the request implicated prison administration.
The court therefore DENIED Bierbrauer’s self-styled motion for a temporary restraining order. The opinion did not decide the underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.