1 – ORDER OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

DANIEL ZACHARY HARPER, 

Plaintiff, No. 2:15-cv-00102-MO

v. ORDER OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

C/O HAWKINS #20862, Correctional 

Officer; CASEY CLEAVER, Sergeant;

D. WHITLEY, Lieutenant; MARK NOOTH, 

Superintendent; LEONARD WILLIAMSON, 

Inspector General; and JOHN/JANE DOE, 

Special Investigations Unit, 

Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Hawkins and Cleaver are enjoined from 

tampering with any witnesses in this case. I will consider it a violation of this order for 

Defendants to act in any way to attempt to alter or prevent the testimony of the witnesses in this 

case. 

Federal Rule of Civil Produce 65(d)(1)(a) requires that I state the reasons why this 

injunction is issued. I incorporate my reasoning as outlined at Oral Argument on December 21, 

2015. That reasoning and this injunction are based on a balancing of the factors outlined by the 

Supreme Court in Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “A plaintiff 

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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.” Id. 

Case 2:15-cv-00102-MO Document 116 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 3
2 – ORDER OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff has shown he has a likelihood of success on the merits based on his witness 

statements and filings. He has shown a serious likelihood of irreparable harm if his witnesses are

threatened. Of particular concern is that the Defendants, as correctional officers, are in positions 

of power over Plaintiff’s inmate witnesses. Given that power disparity, it is a very possible that 

continued threats would alter witness testimony and leave Plaintiff unable to advance his case

and with no immediate remedy. A “stronger showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff might 

offset a lesser showing of likelihood of success on the merits.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 

Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Such is the case here, where a strong showing of 

irreparable harm—from actions that are already unlawful—bolsters Plaintiff’s lesser showing of 

likelihood of success on the merits. As to the balance of equities and the public interest, both tip 

in favor of the Plaintiff. 18 U.S.C. §1512 prohibits witness tampering. A criminal statute 

applying a per se prohibition on witness tampering is the strongest possible evidence to suggest a 

prohibition on witness tampering is in the public interest and results in a balance of the equities. 

Finally, I take seriously the cautions of the PLRA that: 

Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than

necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and the least

intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. The court shall give substantial

weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice 

system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set 

out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief.

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). I am narrowly tailoring this relief by enjoining only witness tampering, 

something already prohibited by law, and applying that injunction only to Defendants Cleaver and 

Hawkins, the defendants whom Plaintiff has included in his allegations. Requiring these officers to 

follow the law should create no adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice 

system. 

Case 2:15-cv-00102-MO Document 116 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 3
3 – ORDER OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [77] is GRANTED 

IN PART as outlined above with respect to witness tampering and DENIED IN PART as to the 

rest. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 8th day of January, 2016. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Court

Case 2:15-cv-00102-MO Document 116 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 3