Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01373/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01373-4/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

27

28

1 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BERNARD BARNO, CDCR #V69078

Plaintiff,

v.

STUART RYAN; JEAN WOODFORD;

CORTEZ, Correctional Counselor; HOMER, 

Correctional Counselor,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07-cv-1373 JM (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION [Doc. No. 20]

I. Introduction

In this prisoner civil rights case, Rodney Bernard Barno (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Currently pending is

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. [Doc. No. 20.] Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on May 13, 2008. [Doc. No. 39.] No reply has been filed.

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction against the current Director of Corrections, Defendant

John Dovey, J. Homer and P. Cortez to enjoin them from:

1. Opening legal correspondence to and from the Court;

2. Implying and/or classifying Plaintiff as a sexual offender;

3. Conducting a retaliatory transfer of Plaintiff in the future; and 

4. Misplacing Plaintiff’s legal materials and/or property if a transfer occurs.

(Plaintiff’s Mtn. Pp. 1-3.)

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 49 Filed 08/22/08 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

27

28

2 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

II. Factual Background

Plaintiff alleges that on March 1, 2005, he was transferred from the San Diego County Jail to the

R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”) for intake and processing. During his placement at the

RJDCF, Plaintiff alleges correctional officer Defendant Cortez “made notations in plaintiff’s C-file and

altered official documents (Institutional Staff Recommendation Summary) alleging he has a sex crime

with a minor and noted an ‘R’ suffix (sex offender designation) needs to be considered.” See First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at p. 6, para. 15.

On August 2, 2005, Plaintiff was transferred from RJDCF to Calipatria State Prison. Plaintiff

alleges that upon his arrival at Calipatria, he was placed in administrative segregation without access to

his personal property and not given a copy of the California Code of Regulations. (FAC at p.6, para.17.) 

On August 18, 2005, Plaintiff was called before the Institution Classification Committee. He does not

recall being provided with prior written notice of the hearing. (FAC, p. 6, para.18.) As a result of the

hearing, Plaintiff alleges the warden of Calipatria, Defendant Ryan, placed an “R”suffix on Plaintiff’s Cfile and restricted his visits with minors until a copy of the arrest report describing the conduct in

question could be ordered and reviewed. (FAC, pp. 6-7, para.18.) The August 18, 2005, Institutional

Classification Committee Report reads:

“Upon review of the ISRS, the sending Institution is requesting that the receiving Institution

evaluate Inmate for possible “R” suffix. Upon review of the POR (Probation Officer’s Report),

page 13, it is documented Inmate Barno had sexual intercourse with a minor, documenting

threats and violence to the Victim. Upon further review of the central file, it is noted this

resulted in an arrest for PC 646.9(a) Stalking and PC 422 Threaten Crime with Intent to

Terrorize. In mate was retained for 30 days in County Jail and released due to lack of evidence. 

On 08/09/2005, a CDC 850 was completed requesting the Arrest Report for further review and

evaluation for “R” suffix. As a result, committee elects to restrict visiting with Minors and notes

that upon receipt of the arrest report, an “R” suffix review will be conducted.” 

See FAC, Exh.5, p.1. 

On September 8, 2005, Plaintiff was transferred to the California Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility (“CSATF”). (FAC, p. 8, para. 22.) On or about, September 20, 2005, the classification

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 49 Filed 08/22/08 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

27

28

3 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

committee reviewed the requested arrest report and determined that no “R” suffix was required. Id. On

November 16, 2005 the classification committee removed the visiting restriction with minors. (FAC,

p.8, para. 23.)

III. Standard 

In order to prevail on a request for injunctive relief, the moving party must show either a

likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are

raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the moving party’s favor. See Coalition for Economic

Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d

1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). “Under any formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there

exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. In the absence of a

significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the Court need not reach the issue of likelihood of

success on the merits. Id. 

IV. Discussion

A. Prison Mail

Plaintiff alleges generally that prison officials variously open his legal mail. (Plaintiff’s Mtn at

p.1; Plaintiff’s Decl. pp.2-3.) Specifically, Plaintiff contends that prison officials opened his Complaint

when it was mailed for filing with the court in July of 2007. (Plaintiff’s Mtn at p.1.) Here, plaintiff has

failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or the possibility of irreparable injury. Plaintiff’s

complaint was filed, received and docketed by the court on July 26, 2007. (See Doc. No. 1.) Moreover,

Plaintiff fails to address how the opening of his Complaint or alleged opening of other pieces of legal

mail have impeded his access to the court where he has been able to file the instant motion for

preliminary injunction and several other legal briefs. There is no nexus the Court can see at this point

between the alleged opening of Plaintiff’s mail by prison officials and the merits of this case which

involve the erroneous classification of Plaintiff during intake into the prison community. 

The Court also notes that “prison officials may examine the communications of a prisoner

without infringing upon his rights.” United States v. Wilson, 447 F.2d 1, 8 n.4 (9th Cir. 1971). 

Moreover, mail to and from the courts is not considered legal mail because such mail constitutes a

publically available document. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s request

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 49 Filed 08/22/08 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

27

28

4 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

for a preliminary injunction as to the handling of his mail by prison officials is, therefore, DENIED for

failure to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, or that serious questions

regarding the merits of his claim have been raised. 

B. Characterization and/or Classification of Plaintiff As a Sex Offender

Plaintiff requests an injunction to prevent Defendants Dovey, Homer and Cortez from “using any

allegations implying Plaintiff is a sexual offender endangering his personal safety while in the custody

of the Department of Corrections.” (Plaintiff’s Mtn. at p. 2.) “Courts generally do look at the

immediacy of the threatened injury in determining whether to grant preliminary injunctions.” Privitera

v. California Bd. Of Medical Quality Assurance, 926 F.2d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has failed

to show the immediate threatened injury or irreparable harm required for issuance of a preliminary

injunction. Plaintiff’s mistaken classification as a potential sex offender and temporary restriction on

visitation with minors as a result was removed on November 16, 2005 by the California Substance

Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) classification committee. (FAC, p.8, para. 23.) Although

Plaintiff alleges that this mistaken classification is following him to new institutions and threatens his

safety among other inmates, he alleges no threats or incidents in support. (FAC, p.10, para. 31.) 

Plaintiff alleges only that a sex offender “designation ‘in the prison world’ is not likely to go without

physical injury.” (FAC, Doc. No. 11, p.15 at para. 49.) Plaintiff fails to allege any facts to support his

assertion that in the three years since the misleading Institutional Staff Recommendation Summary was

created, he has been or presently is at risk for physical injury. In fact, there is no information to indicate

that his fellow inmates are even aware of the inaccuracies Plaintiff believes are contained in his C-file. 

As noted above, Plaintiff has not alleged any specific injury other than a speculative fear of physical

injury resulting from the notations in his C-file. There does not appear to be any imminent or immediate

injury confronting Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction as to

classification is DENIED. 

C. Retaliatory Transfer

Plaintiff requests the Court prohibit Plaintiff’s transfer from the R.J. Donovan Correctional

Facility by surmising that any future transfer would be in retaliation for his filing of the instant motion. 

(Plaintiff’s Mtn., p. 2.) As noted above, a preliminary injunction may issue upon a showing of

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 49 Filed 08/22/08 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

27

28

5 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

irreparable injury. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997). An

irreparable injury is defined as actual harm or the imminent threat of actual harm. Los Angeles

Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). A

threat of harm is not imminent if it is based on remote possibilities or speculation. Caribbean Marine

Services Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F. 2d 668, 675 (9th Cir. 1988). The simple possibility that Plaintiff may

be transferred to another institution in the future is insufficient to support an injunction request. 

Moreover, federal courts, in general, may not interfere with the day-to-day operations of prisons. See

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). The placement of inmates in prison facilities and the transfer of

inmates between facilities is a matter of security and other considerations distinctly within the province

of prison officials. Plaintiff only speculates that he may suffer a future transfer in retaliation for the

instant motion and has not shown any concrete evidence of an imminent and retaliatory transfer. 

Indeed, Defendants confirm that Plaintiff is not currently on a transfer list. (Decl. Of P. Cortez,

para.12.) Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction as to a possible retaliatory transfer is DENIED.

D. Preventing Lost Property

Building on the speculation that he may be the subject of a retaliatory transfer at some time in

the future, Plaintiff also requests an injunction from the Court to prevent Defendants from losing his

property during the transfer. (Plaintiff’s Mtn., p.3.) As explained in Section C above, “speculative

injury does not constitute irreparable injury.” Goldie’s Bookstore v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472

(9th Cir. 1984). Because Plaintiff’s request to enjoin Defendants from losing property during a transfer

at some undefined point in the future is unsupported and speculative, Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the loss of property is DENIED.

V . Conclusion

 For all the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: August 22, 2008

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 49 Filed 08/22/08 Page 5 of 5