Khan v. Stricklin

Background

Muhammad Khan, a California inmate representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Correctional Training Facility, where he was housed. He alleged that prison officials used infractions he received while at the Santa Clara County Jail to recalculate his classification score. According to the opinion, his score increased from 35 to 39 in October 2023 and then to 69 in January 2024. The prison’s inmate classification committee endorsed his transfer to a level 4 facility.

Khan alleged that the score was miscalculated, that using the infractions violated due process, and that medical holds preventing his transfer had been removed in retaliation or through coercion. He sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 to prevent his transfer. He also filed an administrative motion to file certain documents under seal because they contained confidential information.

Injunction request

The court explained that a preliminary injunction generally requires notice to the opposing party. A temporary restraining order without notice requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard, along with a written certification concerning notice. The court also applied the four preliminary-injunction factors: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest.

The court noted that the defendants had not been served and that Khan had not indicated that he had otherwise notified them or provided the required written certification. The court further found that Khan had not established the necessary factors. Even assuming a protected liberty interest in an accurate classification score, the court said California inmates are generally entitled to notice and an opportunity to contest the score before it is finalized, and Khan’s allegations indicated that he may have received that process. The court found his allegations about retaliation and coercion speculative and conclusory.

The court also found that Khan had not shown likely irreparable harm. His safety concerns were speculative because he did not know which level 4 facility would receive him. His concerns about medical and dental care and continuity of care were likewise speculative because he had not shown that the receiving institution would be unable to provide them.

Rulings

The court denied Khan’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as without merit. It granted Khan’s administrative motion to file certain documents under seal. The order terminated Docket Nos. 2 and 4.