Harris v. Ramirez
- Beth Freeman
- 3:22-cv-01568
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Harris v. Ramirez, Judge Freeman denied Harris’s temporary restraining-order motions because notice and likelihood-of-success requirements were unmet.
The order directly affected Tevin Lee Harris and correctional officer B. Ramirez. It also addressed Harris’s request for relief against other prison officials who were not parties to the action.
What happened
Tevin Lee Harris, a California inmate representing himself, sued correctional officer B. Ramirez under a federal civil-rights law, alleging excessive force and retaliation. Harris asked the court to immediately restrict Ramirez and other prison officials after another pepper-spray incident.
The court denied Harris’s motions for a temporary restraining order. It found that he had not properly certified his efforts to provide notice and had not shown that he was likely to succeed on his excessive-force claim. The court also said it could not issue an order against officials who were not parties to the case.
Judge Freeman said the court would address Harris’s preliminary-injunction motion after Ramirez was served and had an opportunity to respond. The order did not finally decide Harris’s underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Ramirez · No. 3:22-cv-01568
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 21, 2022
Background
Tevin Lee Harris, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer B. Ramirez. Harris alleged that Ramirez used excessive force by spraying him with pepper spray on December 21, 2021, and did so in retaliation for grievances Harris had filed against Ramirez and other officers.
Harris later filed an urgent request for injunctive relief and a supplemental motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The court treated those filings as requests for a preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order. Harris alleged that Ramirez and other officials again used pepper spray against him on March 16, 2022, and that additional officials failed to protect or intervene. The incident report attached to Harris’s filing stated that Harris did not submit to handcuffing, grabbed Ramirez’s baton, and refused an order to get down before chemical agents were used.
Court’s Analysis
A preliminary injunction generally requires notice to the opposing party, so the court said it could not decide that request until Ramirez had been served and given an opportunity to respond. A temporary restraining order can sometimes issue without notice, but Rule 65(b) requires a written certification describing efforts to provide notice and why notice should not be required.
The court found Harris’s temporary-restraining-order request deficient because he did not provide that certification. Harris stated only that Ramirez had been served with the complaint and did not explain how or when Ramirez received notice of the action and the motion. The only proof of service Harris provided showed that he mailed documents to the court.
The court also found that Harris had not met the requirements for emergency relief. It said Harris mentioned the required factors without presenting legal arguments and had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Based on the incident report, the court stated that the March 16 use of force appeared possibly justified by Harris’s aggressive behavior and failure to comply. The court could not determine whether the December 21 use of force was excessive because Harris had not specifically described the circumstances of that incident. The court noted that Harris’s statement that the incident report had been dismissed did not explain why it was dismissed.
Finally, Harris sought a temporary restraining order against people who were not parties to the case. The court said an injunction generally binds the parties and certain people acting with them, and that the court could not enforce an injunction against nonparties over whom it had no jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court denied Harris’s motion and supplemental motion for a temporary restraining order as without merit and terminated Docket Nos. 6 and 9. It stated that it would order briefing on Harris’s preliminary-injunction motion after the action was served on Ramirez. Judge Beth Labson Freeman did not enter a final ruling on the underlying excessive-force or retaliation claims in this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.