Barno v. Padilla
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-03886
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Barno v. Padilla, Judge Illston denied Barno’s request for a temporary restraining order and to seal it.
Rodney Bernard Barno’s requests for emergency injunctive relief and sealing were denied. The order concerned alleged conduct by correctional officers Tuiolosega and Orzepeda and an inmate, none of whom was a defendant in this action; it did not decide the underlying claims against the six defendants.
What happened
In Barno v. Padilla, Rodney Bernard Barno, a California prisoner representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law over alleged retaliation and interference with his mail. He asked the court to stop alleged recent harassment and retaliation by people who were not defendants in this case.
The court found that Barno had not shown immediate and likely serious harm. It also found no evidence connecting the recent allegations to the older events described in his complaint, and said his claim that the people involved were acting for the defendants appeared speculative. The defendants had not yet been served or appeared, and Barno had not shown that an emergency order without notice was justified.
Judge Susan Illston denied the request for a temporary restraining order. She also denied Barno’s request to file that request under seal, finding that his concern that other inmates might read it and harm him was speculative and that he had not shown a sufficient reason to overcome public access to court records.
The detailed version
- Barno v. Padilla · No. 3:20-cv-03886
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 13, 2020
Background
Rodney Bernard Barno, a California prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously determined that his complaint stated legally cognizable claims against six defendants for retaliation and for violating his First Amendment right to send mail. Those claims concerned events in 2018 and early 2019, and efforts to serve the six defendants were underway.
Barno then filed an ex parte request for a temporary restraining order, meaning an emergency order sought without first notifying or hearing from the opposing parties. He alleged that correctional officers Tuiolosega and Orzepeda and an inmate were harassing and retaliating against him because of his grievance-filing activities. None of those people was a defendant in this action. Barno asked the court to direct the defendants and their coworkers to stop the alleged conduct. He also asked that the request be filed under seal so other inmates could not see it.
Temporary Restraining Order
A temporary restraining order preserves the existing situation and prevents irreparable harm—harm that cannot adequately be repaired later—until the court can hold a hearing on a preliminary-injunction request. The court applied the same standards used for a preliminary injunction: likelihood of success on the merits, likely and immediate irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and consistency with the public interest.
The court concluded that Barno’s evidence fell far short of showing likely and imminent irreparable harm. It also found that Barno had not provided evidence connecting the alleged recent misconduct to the claims in his complaint concerning events in 2018 and early 2019. The alleged wrongdoers were not defendants, and Barno’s assertion that they were acting on behalf of defendants appeared speculative. The court further explained that its power to issue an injunction extends only to the claims and controversy before it, so injunctive relief could not be based on claims that were not pleaded in the complaint.
The court also addressed the requirement for an emergency order without notice. Because the defendants had not yet been served or appeared, such an order could issue only if specific facts clearly showed that immediate and irreparable injury would occur before the defendants could respond, along with the required certification concerning notice. The court found that Barno had not shown that such relief was necessary. It therefore denied Barno’s ex parte request for a temporary restraining order.
Request to Seal
Barno sought to seal his request because other inmates might find it on the court’s docket, read it, and assault him. The court recognized a strong presumption that the public may access court records, which can be overcome only by a compelling reason. It found Barno’s concern about inmates generally accessing the records and deciding to harm him speculative. As to the particular inmate mentioned in the request, the court noted that Barno had already filed an inmate appeal about that inmate’s activities and had not shown that the information in the TRO request differed from the information in that appeal.
Disposition
Judge Susan Illston denied the request for a temporary restraining order and denied the request to file that request under seal. The order did not decide the merits of Barno’s underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.