Khan v. Madsen

Background

Muhammad Khan, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Correctional Training Facility, where the opinion says he was housed. His amended complaint alleged harassment, retaliation, searches, unsafe conditions, religious-materials issues, due-process violations, and disciplinary actions based on allegedly false Rules Violation Reports. Khan alleged that those reports resulted in losses of good-time credits, including additional periods of imprisonment.

Khan filed a motion concerning a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction. The relief discussed in this order was a rehearing on one disciplinary report and related grievance records. Khan argued that newly discovered evidence supported a rehearing and that he was unlawfully imprisoned because of the allegedly fraudulent report.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. A preliminary injunction generally requires notice to the opposing party before the court can decide the request. A temporary restraining order without notice is available only when specific facts show an immediate risk of harm before the opposing party can be heard and the applicant makes the required written certification about notice.

The court found that the defendants had not been served and that Khan had not shown he otherwise notified them of the claims as required for emergency relief without notice. Khan relied on a grievance stating that he wanted a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, but the court found no indication that the specific defendants were aware of that grievance. The grievance referred generally to “respondents” and did not identify a specific defendant.

The court also applied the standard for preliminary injunctive relief, which requires a clear showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, favorable balancing of the equities, and consistency with the public interest. The court stated that Khan had not shown a likelihood of success. It explained that challenges to disciplinary findings resulting in time-credit losses must be brought through a petition challenging the legality of imprisonment when restoring those credits would necessarily result in earlier release. The court further noted that, because the underlying events occurred in 2020, Khan would have to establish that the claims were not time-barred.

Disposition

The court denied Khan’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as without merit and terminated Docket No. 27. The opinion also states that the portion of the action challenging the time-credit-related disciplinary reports “must be dismissed” to be filed as a habeas action, but the conclusion specifically addresses and denies the motion rather than separately listing a dismissal of claims.