Harris v. Atchley

Background

Michael Jay Harris, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action concerning his safety in prison. He alleged that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation intended to transfer him from sensitive-needs custody at Salinas Valley State Prison to a non-designated yard at another facility. Harris connected the alleged transfer risk to his classification as a Level 2 inmate and the prison yard’s Level 3 designation. He also alleged that his convictions made transfer to another facility unsafe.

Harris had already filed two motions seeking a temporary restraining order, and the court denied both. The court previously found that no transfer plan existed and that any irreparable harm was only possible, rather than likely. Harris then filed a third motion, received May 30, 2023. The court did not request a response from the defendants because it found a response unnecessary to decide that motion.

Legal standard

To obtain a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the order, that the balance of equities favors the plaintiff, and that the order would serve the public interest. The court emphasized that irreparable injury must be likely, not merely possible.

Court’s analysis

Harris described an annual review meeting but did not state that he had been endorsed for transfer or that a transfer was imminent. He also acknowledged the representation that there was no impending transfer or endorsement to another facility and that he remained in the sensitive-needs yard at Salinas Valley State Prison. A prison classification and parole representative likewise stated in a sworn declaration that there were no current plans to transfer Harris from his housing assignment.

The court further relied on Harris’s statement that another prisoner whose security classification did not match the facility’s classification had not been transferred because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation could not find safe alternative housing. The court found that this information suggested that transfers raising safety concerns were not occurring and undermined Harris’s claim that he might be transferred despite those concerns.

Disposition

The court denied Harris’s third temporary restraining-order motion because he again failed to show that irreparable harm was likely and because his filing suggested that the transfer and resulting harm were unlikely to occur. The order disposed of Docket No. 39. The court stated that the defendants’ motion to dismiss and Harris’s motions for a preliminary injunction and to compel discovery remained pending.