Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01793/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01793-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL P. BJORLIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1793 GEB GGH P

vs.

T. HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has brought a “motion for injunction relief,” which he apparently intends

to be a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunctive relief, declaring

that he is in fear for his life and that his life has been threatened. Motion, pp. 1-2. 

TRO/Motion for Preliminary Injunction

TRO

The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo

pending a fuller hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a

temporary restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the

hearing on a preliminary injunction. It is apparent, however, that requests for temporary

restraining orders which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by the same general

Case 2:09-cv-01793-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 To the extent that this purports to be an ex parte motion for a TRO without notice, the 1

undersigned notes that there are stringent requirements to be imposed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 for

issuance of such an order, which plaintiff clearly has not met. Reno Air Racing Ass’n., Inc. v.

McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9 Cir. 2006). Rule 65(b) permits issuance of a TRO without “notice th

to the adverse party or its attorney, only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint

clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury...will result to the movant before the adverse party

can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to

give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.”

2

standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. 1

Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch.

Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting);

Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the

emphasis of the court is directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships because the

merits of a controversy are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice. 

Preliminary Injunction Standard

“The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to

demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm

in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 3448435

at *13 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ___,

129 S.Ct. 365, 375-76 (2008).

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any

preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

In his underlying amended complaint, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, violations by

defendants of his rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from being

sexually assaulted by a cellmate, on September 22, 2009, with whom he was placed by defendant

Callission (whom plaintiff actually alleges set plaintiff up to be injured), and by showing

Case 2:09-cv-01793-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

indifference to his concerns thereafter. Amended Complaint, pp. 7-9. Plaintiff also makes

claims of retaliation under the First Amendment: after plaintiff had been raped, plaintiff claims

that defendant Callission told him that the next time he got a cellmate, plaintiff would not be

walking out of his cell but would come out in a body bag for “snitching” against defendant

Callassion’s partner (apparently in the form of filing a grievance relating to defendant Hubbard’s

harassment of plaintiff). Id., at 5-7. When, on September 25, 2009, plaintiff witnessed

defendants Swart and Mortell “beat and punch another inmate in the face,” plaintiff was

threatened by them to keep silent or he might be hurt. Id., at 7-8. 

In his preliminary injunctive relief motion, plaintiff, who identifies himself as a

mental health patient in fear for his life, states, under penalty of perjury, that defendants have

tampered with his meals, deprived of him of access to showers and law library books; he states

emphatically an allegation he raises in his underlying complaint, that defendant Calison (also

spelled by plaintiff, randomly, as Callassion, see above) set him up to be raped by his cellmate,

on September 20, 2009, and reiterates Calison’s warning to him that he would come out of his

cell next time in a body bag. Motion, p. 2. Plaintiff further states that on January 18, 2010, he

and his cellmate, Mr. Johnson (presumably a different cellmate from the one who allegedly raped

plaintiff), had their lives seriously threatened. Id. Plaintiff states that “higher officials” have

failed to take action and that he is suffering retaliation due to his having filed a 602 grievance

and a lawsuit against defendant Hubbard (by which it is unclear whether he means the instant

lawsuit, wherein he sued many defendants, including Hubbard, or a different one). Id. 

Plaintiff claims that on January 18, 2010, two correctional officers, defendant

Calison as well as T. Smith, a non-party, both threatened the lives of plaintiff and his cellmate,

Johnson, stating that they were going to be separated and killed or set up to be murdered. 

Motion, p. 3. Plaintiff avers that both defendant C/O Calison and non-defendant C/O Smith have

assaulted him on “numerous occasions” and have tampered with his food. Id., at 3-4. Plaintiff is

seeking an immediate transfer from HDSP and cautions that if he should wind up injured or

Case 2:09-cv-01793-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

dead, any such event will have been orchestrated by defendant Calison, non-party Smith and

permitted by defendant McDonald and a non-defendant associate warden named Davey. Id., at 2,

4. 

The court has found some of the allegations of the underlying complaint at least

cognizable. Plaintiff’s declaration under penalty of perjury that defendant Calison set plaintiff up

to be raped and has threatened his life more than once, the last time on January 18, 2010, raises

some concern. On the other hand, plaintiff is too vague about when and how his food has been

tampered with by defendant Calison and C/O Smith, nor does he provide specific instances of the

“numerous” times he has been assaulted/attacked by these individuals (beyond laying the

responsibility for the sexual assault he suffered in September, 2009, on defendant Calison, and

beyond the recent threat he describes made to himself and his cellmate, which apparently

occurred for no discernible reason). Although the court cannot, on this showing, ascertain the

credibility of plaintiff’s fears related to threats against his life, it is difficult to discern how the

balance of equities could tip in defendants’ favor if plaintiff is at risk or how denying preliminary

injunctive relief would not be in the public interest. The Attorney General’s Office and

defendants will be directed to ascertain whether plaintiff is being subjected to assaults or is

currently endangered by the actions of defendant Calison or any other defendant. A response to

the motion for preliminary injunction must be filed within seven (7) days from the date of this

order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court must serve this order, as well as plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, filed on January 27, 2010 (docket # 13), upon the Supervising

Deputy Attorney General Jennifer O’Neill electronically and must serve separately by mail

defendant Calison at High Desert State Prison (HDSP), as well as defendant HDSP Warden Mike

McDonald (notwithstanding that the court has recommended McDonald’s dismissal from this

case);

Case 2:09-cv-01793-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 02/04/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

2. Defendants have seven (7) days to respond to plaintiff’s January 27, 2010

(docket # 13), motion for preliminary injunctive relief; and

3. The Attorney General’s Office and defendants must immediately ascertain

whether or not plaintiff’s life is at risk at High Desert State Prison and to take the steps necessary

to assure his safety.

DATED: February 3, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

bjor1793.mtn

Case 2:09-cv-01793-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 02/04/10 Page 5 of 5