Harris v. Atchley
- Edward Chen
- 3:22-cv-00529
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Harris v. Atchley, Judge Chen denied Michael Harris’s second request for a temporary restraining order because likely serious harm was not shown.
Michael Jay Harris’s request for emergency protection from a possible prison transfer was denied. The order also warned Harris that unsupported factual claims in future filings could result in sanctions; it did not resolve the underlying civil-rights action.
What happened
Harris v. Atchley concerns Michael Harris’s request to stop a possible transfer from sensitive-needs custody at Salinas Valley State Prison to a non-designated yard at another facility. Harris, who represented himself and identified himself as a prisoner, said the transfer would put his safety at risk.
The court had previously denied Harris’s first request because there was no plan to transfer him, making serious harm only possible rather than likely. In his second request, Harris said he would be considered for transfer on March 22, 2022. Defendants responded with documents showing that Harris was instead approved to remain in sensitive-needs custody at Salinas Valley State Prison.
The court again found that Harris had not shown likely irreparable harm without an order. Judge Edward M. Chen therefore denied the second temporary restraining-order motion and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 12.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Atchley · No. 3:22-cv-00529
- Edward Chen
- Mar. 28, 2022
Background
Michael Jay Harris, who was representing himself, brought a civil-rights action as a prisoner. He alleged that his safety was at risk because he might be transferred from sensitive-needs custody at Salinas Valley State Prison to a non-designated yard at another facility.
Harris previously filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to prevent immediate harm. The court denied that motion because there was no plan to transfer Harris, so any irreparable injury was only possible and not likely. Defendants had represented that the endorsement to transfer Harris had expired.
Second Motion
Harris filed a second temporary restraining-order motion and marked it as an emergency. He represented that defendants were taking him before the Unit Classification Committee on March 22, 2022, and argued that he would both be endorsed for transfer and transferred on that date. The court ordered defendants to respond on an expedited schedule.
To obtain a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm if the order is not issued, that the balance of equities favors the plaintiff, and that the order serves the public interest. The court emphasized that irreparable injury must be likely, not merely possible.
Ruling
Defendants represented, and submitted documents showing, that at the March 22 meeting Harris was endorsed to remain in sensitive-needs custody at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court concluded that Harris again failed to show that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief.
The court denied Harris’s second temporary-restraining-order motion. The order disposed of Docket No. 12. The court also warned Harris that future factual misrepresentations could lead to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires factual claims in filings to have evidentiary support.
What the Order Did Not Decide
This order addressed only Harris’s request for temporary emergency relief. It did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims in the action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.