(PC) Bjorlin v. Hubbard et al, No. 2:2009cv01793 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/26/10 ORDERING that plaintiff's 21 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted until 3/31/10 to return copies and forms; Clerk directed to provide plaintiff with 6 additional USM-285 forms. It is further RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's 13 Motion for Injunctive Relief be DENIED. Objections due with 21 days of service. (cc: Monica Anderson) (Owen, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Bjorlin v. Hubbard et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL P. BJORLIN, 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 13 T. HUBBARD, et al., ORDER & Defendants. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 16 No. CIV S-09-1793 GEB GGH P Introduction Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 18 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, filed on January 27, 19 2010, to which, although no defendant had yet been served, this court ordered a response by two 20 of the named defendants, Callison (spelled as Calison in the order) and McDonald, within seven 21 days, by Order, filed on February 4, 2010 (docket # 15).1 which response was timely filed on 22 February 16, 2010 (docket # 20) by the Attorney-General’s Office. 23 \\\\\ 24 1 25 26 The court directed the Court Clerk to serve the motion for preliminary injunctive relief upon the Attorney General’s Office as well as upon defendants Callison and McDonald and, in addition to a response, ordered the Attorney General and defendants to ascertain plaintiff’s safety and take any necessary steps to assure his safety. See docket # 15. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 TRO/Motion for Preliminary Injunction As the court stated in its Order, filed on February 4, 2010 (docket # 15), plaintiff 2 3 has brought a “motion for injunction relief,” which he apparently intends to be a motion for a 4 temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunctive relief, declaring that he is in fear for 5 his life and that his life has been threatened. Motion, pp. 1-2. 6 TRO 7 The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo 8 pending a fuller hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a 9 temporary restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the 10 hearing on a preliminary injunction. It is apparent, however, that requests for temporary 11 restraining orders which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by the same general 12 standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction.2 See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. 13 Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch. 14 Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting); 15 Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the 16 emphasis of the court is directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships because the 17 merits of a controversy are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice. 18 Preliminary Injunction Standard 19 “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to 20 demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 21 in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 22 2 23 24 25 26 To the extent that this purports to be an ex parte motion for a TRO without notice, the 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 (9th Cir. 2006). Rule 65(b) permits issuance of a TRO without “notice 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 1 injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2 2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. , quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 3 ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375-76 (2008). In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any 4 5 preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the 6 harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to 7 correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 8 Underlying Allegations 9 As the court has previously observed, in his underlying amended complaint, filed 10 on October 22, 2009 (docket # 12), plaintiff alleges, inter alia, violations by defendants of his 11 rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from a sexual assault by a cellmate, 12 on September 22, 2009, with whom he was placed by defendant Callison3 (whom plaintiff 13 actually alleges set plaintiff up to be injured), and by showing indifference to his concerns 14 thereafter. Amended Complaint, pp. 7-9. Plaintiff also makes claims of retaliation under the 15 First Amendment: plaintiff alleges that after he had been raped, defendant Callison told him that 16 the next time he got a cellmate, he (plaintiff) would not be walking out of his cell but would 17 come out in a body bag for “snitching” against defendant Callison’s partner (apparently, by 18 having filed a grievance relating to defendant Hubbard’s alleged harassment of plaintiff). Id., at 19 5-7. When, on September 25, 2009, plaintiff witnessed defendants Swart and Mortell “beat and 20 punch another inmate in the face,” plaintiff was threatened by them to keep silent or he might be 21 hurt. Id., at 7-8. Plaintiff was so frightened that he informed a non-defendant social worker, Mr. 22 Marrow, about what had happened and he called defendant Perez. Id., at 8. On September 30, 23 2009, defendant C/O Rainey wrote plaintiff up on a CDC-115 rules violation report (RVR) for 24 obstructing a peace officer by refusing to accept assigned housing, stating that he did not care 25 3 26 Plaintiff has introduced various spellings of this name; the court takes the spelling from defendant Callison’s own declaration. See Callison Declaration, Docket # 20-3. 3 1 about plaintiff’s fears of being assigned an incompatible cellmate, even after plaintiff told him 2 that he had been the victim of a sexual assault eight days earlier and that the cellmate officials 3 planned to put in his cell was one with whom he had had a previous physical altercation. Id., at 4 8-9. Plaintiff told Rainey he had even gone on suicide watch because officers had not wanted to 5 move either one of them. Id., at 9. Although defendant Perez had granted his 602, he made no 6 attempt to protect plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants Cummings, Lockhart and 7 Fannon, inter alia, failed to investigate his claims and to protect him. Id., at 16-17. Plaintiff 8 seeks money damages. Id., at 11. Motion 9 In his preliminary injunctive relief motion, plaintiff, who identifies himself as a 10 11 mental health patient in fear for his life, states, under penalty of perjury, that defendants have 12 tampered with his meals and deprived of him of access to showers and law library books; he 13 states emphatically that defendant Callison set him up to be raped by his cellmate, on September 14 20, 2009, an allegation he makes in the underlying amended complaint4 and reiterates defendant 15 Callison’s alleged warning to him that he would come out of his cell next time in a body bag. 16 Motion, p. 2. Plaintiff further states that on January 18, 2010, he and his cellmate, named 17 Johnson (presumably a different cellmate from the one who allegedly raped plaintiff), had their 18 lives seriously threatened. Id. Plaintiff states that “higher officials” have failed to take action to 19 ameliorate the situation and that he is suffering retaliation due to his having filed a 602 grievance 20 and a lawsuit against defendant Hubbard (by which it is unclear whether he means the instant 21 lawsuit, wherein he sued many defendants, including Hubbard, or a different one). Id. Plaintiff claims that on January 18, 2010, two correctional officers (C/O’s), 22 23 defendant Callison as well as T. Smith, a non-party, both threatened the lives of plaintiff and his 24 25 26 4 There is, however, a discrepancy as to the date plaintiff identifies within his amended complaint, September 22, 2009, and the date he claims within his motion, September 20, 2009, as the day on which he was sexually assaulted. 4 1 cellmate, Joseph Johnson, (apparently one with whom he has no problem being housed with) 2 stating that they were going to be separated and killed or set up to be murdered. Motion, p. 3. 3 Plaintiff avers that both defendant C/O Callison and non-defendant C/O Smith have assaulted 4 him on “numerous occasions” and have tampered with his food. Id., at 3-4. Plaintiff is seeking 5 an immediate transfer from HDSP and cautions that if he should wind up injured or dead, any 6 such event will have been orchestrated by defendant Callison and non-party Smith and permitted 7 by defendant McDonald and a non-defendant associate warden named Davey. Id., at 2, 4. 8 Plaintiff makes his assertions under penalty of perjury. Id., at 4. 9 On February 5, 2010 (docket # 18), plaintiff filed a document he entitled a 10 declaration but which he failed to sign at all, much less under penalty of perjury. Within this 11 defective document, plaintiff again asserts his desire to be transferred to a “safer facility,” or 12 alternatively to be put into federal protective custody. Docket # 18, p. 1. He continues to 13 complain of HDSP ASU SNY inmates being forced to be housed with incompatible cellmates. 14 Id., at 2. Plaintiff references again the alleged sexual assault to which he claims to have been 15 subjected on September 20, 2009. Id., at 2-3. He refers, as well, to the alleged incident on 16 January 18, 2010, this time adding that when C/O Smith and defendant Callison spoke to 17 plaintiff’s cellmate, Johnson, as he returned to the cell, non-party Smith is supposed to have said 18 to Johnson: “Nigger, I will kill you! I will have you hanging in a cell in Z unit like that nigger 19 they found on Christmas.” Id., at 4. Plaintiff again reiterates that Smith and defendant Callison 20 have threatened to kill him “on many occasions,” and that he is in the mental health program and 21 turning to the courts for help as he trusts no one where he is. Id. 22 Response/Opposition 23 The February 16, 2010 (docket # 20), response by the Office of the Attorney 24 General points out that no defendants have yet been served and no waiver is intended by its 25 special appearance. Response (Resp.), p. 1, note 1. The Attorney General’s Office has 26 determined that plaintiff had been housed in the HDSP Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) 5 1 originally on October 21, 2009, for being in possession of a weapon; plaintiff was found guilty 2 on the RVR for a weapons violation on February 3, 2009, and assessed a 360-day credit loss and 3 a ten-month Security Housing Unit (SHU) term. Resp., pp. 1-2, citing Declaration (Dec.) of R. 4 Dreith, HDSP Litigation Coordinator ¶ 2. A Classification Services Representative (CSR) 5 approved a ten-month SHU term for plaintiff on March 30, 2009, with a June 6, 2009, release 6 date. Resp., p. 2, Drieth Dec., ¶ 3. Plaintiff was referred for non-adverse transfer to the Sensitive 7 Needs Yard (SNY) of California State Prison-Lancaster (CSP-LAC), on September 10, 2009, due 8 to safety concerns on the HDSP B SNY, but the CSR endorsement expired on February 3, 2010. 9 Resp., p. 2, Dreith Dec., ¶ 4.5 10 When, on January 28, 2010, plaintiff was scheduled to appear at the Institutional 11 Classification Committee (ICC) for a referral back to the CSR to endorse a transfer to either the 12 CSP-LAC SNY or Pleasant Valley State Prison’s (PVSP) SNY, plaintiff refused to attend the 13 hearing, according to declarant R. Dreith, and the hearing was held with plaintiff in absentia. 14 Dreith Dec., ¶ 5. The ICC recommended plaintiff’s case be referred to the CSR with a 15 recommendation for transfer to the SNY at PVSP or CSP-LAC. Id. According to Litigation Coordinator Dreith, although plaintiff is currently 16 17 awaiting his transfer, he was moved from his housing in Unit D7 to Unit D6, in an abundance of 18 caution on February 11, 2010, with the aim of ensuring the safety of both plaintiff and the staff 19 he has accused of threatening him. Id., at ¶ 6. Finally, declarant Dreith avers that an investigation into plaintiff’s allegations of 20 21 rape by a former cellmate was conducted on September 20, 2009, by the HDSP Investigative 22 Services Unit and has been completed. Id., at ¶ 7. Dreith states that the investigation showed 23 plaintiff to be less than cooperative, failing to provide specific details of the incident; the 24 investigating officer felt that plaintiff may have been attempting to manipulate staff with false 25 5 26 Dreith refers to CSP-LAC as California State Prison, Los Angeles County, but the Attorney General apparently correctly refers to it as California State Prison-Lancaster. 6 1 sexual assault allegations to obtain a cell move or a transfer from HDSP. Id. In a separate declaration, defendant C/O E. Callison denies that he assaulted 2 3 plaintiff or set him up to be raped or that he has ever threatened or assaulted any inmate. 4 Callison Dec., ¶¶ 2-3. He further declares that, while he has the authority to initiate bed or cell 5 moves, that all potential cellmates are screened for compatibility by an officer, sergeant or 6 lieutenant and prospective cellmates must sign a chrono indicating they can be suitably housed 7 together. Id., at ¶ 4. Further, all moves must be approved and authorized by the unit sergeant or 8 lieutenant, according to declarant Callison. Id. Plaintiff’s Further Filing 9 10 In motion for an extension of time, filed on February 18, 2010 (docket # 21), 11 which the court will address hereafter, plaintiff attaches a 602 grievance he and his cellmate, 12 Johnson, evidently filed on February 15, 2010. The grievance confirms by plaintiff his move 13 from D-7 to D-6 that the Attorney General’s response indicated had occurred on February 11, 14 2010. In the grievance, plaintiff apparently means to assert that his troubles have not been 15 resolved by the move. He claims that defendant Swart, on the same day as the move, February 16 11, 2010, left D-7 to come to D-6, whereupon he destroyed legal documents intended for court 17 belonging to Johnson6 and himself, as well as Johnson’s personal property, in retaliation for the 18 instant lawsuit, the pending motion, and/or other legal matters. Defendant Swart stated: “this is 19 not over, it’s just the beginning...,” according to plaintiff’s grievance. The next day, February 12, 20 2010, defendant Swart again came from D-7 to D-6, at the time of breakfast tray pick up and 21 asked plaintiff and Johnson if they liked the “special trays” he had made for them. Half an hour 22 later defendant Swart and a non-defendant C/O named Marshall came and told plaintiff and 23 Johnson to put on handcuffs for a cell search. They refused because they did not want the rest of 24 25 26 6 Plaintiff makes frequent reference in his administrative grievance to an inmate named Johnson, evidently his current cellmate, as another plaintiff or as a co-plaintiff in this action, but there is no basis for this. This matter is proceeding with Daniel Bjorlin as the sole plaintiff. 7 1 their property to be destroyed by defendant Swart. When a non-party Correctional Sgt. Lowther 2 came to ask them to cuff up for a property search, they explained what had happened the day 3 before; Lowther told defendant Swart to leave D-6, after which Johnson and plaintiff complied 4 with the cell search (which apparently proceeded without further incident). Plaintiff in his 5 grievance claims that his “psych doctor” Sloan said he was aware of the threats and harassment 6 plaintiff has been experiencing. 7 Conclusion 8 While plaintiff does appear to be seeking preliminary injunctive relief in his 9 motion for an injury or potential injury that bears the necessary relationship to the conduct 10 asserted in the underlying amended complaint, Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 11 1994), per curiam,7 plaintiff is hampered in proceeding on his motion by failing to make clear 12 that he seeks injunctive relief within the instant complaint. Moreover, based on both the 13 response by the Attorney General’s Office and on plaintiff’s own representation, it appears that 14 plaintiff has been moved from the immediate sphere of defendant Callison of whom he 15 complains most vociferously within his motion. Further, it appears that plaintiff is to be 16 transferred to another facility in the near future. While it is difficult to assess at this stage 17 plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits, the court finds in the most current circumstances 18 that he has not made an adequate showing that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 19 absence of preliminary injunctive relief, even were he to amend the relief he seeks to include 20 injunctive relief in the underlying action. Nor does the court find that in light of his recent move 21 and apparently imminent transfer that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 22 injunction would be in the public interest. The motion should be denied. 23 Motion for Extension of Time Plaintiff has also asked for an extension of time to submit the ten amended 24 25 7 26 Cited in Anaya v. Campbell, 2009 WL 425034 *1 (E.D. Cal 2009); Houser v. Grant-Ellis, 2010 WL 432327 *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2010). 8 1 complaint copies, pursuant to the Order, filed on February 4, 2010 (docket # 14), as well as six 2 additional USM-285 forms. Motion, filed on February 18, 2010 (docket # 21). Plaintiff 3 contends that, as a form of retaliation by defendant Swart and unnamed others, he is being 4 restricted to making two copies of the amended complaint a week. Id., at 2. He also states that 5 defendant Swart destroyed legal forms and documents related to the instant case. Id. The court 6 has previously referenced the contents of the 602 inmate appeal form that he filed on February 7 15, 2010, claiming that defendant Swart destroyed his legal work and personal property (as well 8 as that of another inmate named Johnson) in anger because of plaintiff’s having sought a 9 “restraining order” in this case. Id., at 3. The court will grant plaintiff’s requests for an extension 10 of time and additional forms on this occasion. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to return the forms and copies of the 13 amended complaint necessary for the court to direct service of process and his request for six 14 additional USM-285 forms, filed on February 18, 2010 (docket # 21), are both granted; 2. Plaintiff is granted until March 31, 2010, to return the requisite copies and 15 16 forms as set forth in the court’s order of February 4, 2010 (docket # 14); and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with six additional USM- 17 18 19 285 forms. 4. In addition, the Clerk of the Court must serve a copy of this Order and these 20 Findings and Recommendations upon Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson. 21 IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, 22 filed on January 27, 2010 (docket # 13), be denied. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 24 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 25 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 26 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 1 “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 2 shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are 3 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 4 District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 DATED: February 26, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 GGH:009 bjor1793.ofr 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
