Harris v. Atchley

Background

Michael Jay Harris, a prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights action concerning his possible transfer from sensitive-needs custody at Salinas Valley State Prison to a non-designated programming facility, or NDPF. The court had previously reviewed his complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, dismissed some claims, and allowed a remaining Eighth Amendment claim to proceed. Harris sought to prevent his transfer, prevent punishment for refusing the transfer, and obtain a ruling that NDPF housing inherently violates the Eighth Amendment.

California later adopted formal regulations addressing NDPFs. Harris’s pleadings challenged the earlier, unofficial NDPF policy rather than the formal regulations, and he had not amended his complaint to challenge the regulations.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants argued that the case was moot, meaning that no live dispute remained and the court could no longer provide effective relief. They asserted that the last Level II sensitive-needs yard had been abolished by July 2022 and that the court could not order the defendants to reestablish one or house Harris elsewhere.

The court found the defendants’ argument too brief and unsupported to establish mootness. The defendants had not adequately explained why the court could not order a new Level II sensitive-needs facility or provide more limited relief, such as allowing Harris to remain at his current facility or granting a variance under California regulations. The court therefore DENIED the defendants’ dismissal motion, without prejudice to renewal, and gave them an additional opportunity to submit a renewed motion supported by legal authority or state that they would proceed to the merits.

The court also observed that the later formal regulations could potentially affect whether Harris’s challenge to the earlier policy remained live. The defendants had not raised that argument in the pending motion, however.

Motion to Compel and Discovery Stay

Harris asked the court to require the defendants to answer discovery requests seeking documents about housing and programming policies for prisoners serving sentences for sex offenses. The court found that the requests were broader than this case, which concerned the possible transfer of one Level II prisoner from sensitive-needs housing to an NDPF.

The court DENIED Harris’s motion to compel, stating that he could renew it if the jurisdictional issue was resolved in his favor. The court also stayed discovery until the subject-matter-jurisdiction question was resolved.

Temporary Restraining Order

A temporary restraining order is short-term injunctive relief intended to preserve the existing situation and prevent irreparable harm before a hearing on preliminary-injunction relief. Applying the standards for such relief, the court found that Harris had raised at least a serious legal question about whether the NDPF policy violated the Eighth Amendment. The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions recognizing that sex offenders may face a risk of physical harm when housed with general-population prisoners.

The court also found that Harris faced likely irreparable harm because the defendants had declared that he was scheduled to transfer to an NDPF on August 1, 2023. The court found that the balance of hardships favored Harris because the requested order would preserve his current housing and would not require the defendants to open a new facility. The court further found that the relief was narrowly drawn and was the least intrusive means necessary to address the alleged harm, as required for prospective relief concerning prison conditions.

The court GRANTED Harris’s request for a temporary restraining order preventing his transfer from sensitive-needs housing at Salinas Valley State Prison to an NDPF. It ordered the defendants and persons acting with them or under their control not to place Harris on an NDPF or otherwise require him to be housed with general-population prisoners.

The court GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Harris’s temporary-restraining-order request. It granted relief concerning Harris’s own transfer, but denied relief seeking to block enforcement of the NDPF regulations generally. The court found that broader relief would affect thousands of prisoners, would not be narrowly tailored to Harris, and might exceed the scope of the complaint. The temporary restraining order took effect immediately and was to remain in effect until August 14, 2023. The court also ordered the defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not be entered during the case.

Disposition

The dismissal motion was denied without prejudice to renewal. Harris’s motion to compel production of documents was denied, and discovery was stayed pending resolution of jurisdiction. Harris’s temporary restraining-order request was granted in part and denied in part. The order did not finally decide the merits of Harris’s Eighth Amendment claim.