Opinion
No. CIV-03-33-S-BLW, CR-01-167-S-BWL
February 12, 2003
ORDER
The Court has before it Plaintiff Melissa Matthews' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 3). After reviewing the motion, the Court finds good cause to grant the Preliminary Injunction.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Matthews was sentenced by the Court on October 16, 2002, to eight months imprisonment to be served at the community confinement center ("CCC"), Port of Hope in Nampa, Idaho. However, the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") recently changed its policy and no longer interprets community confinement as "imprisonment." All prisoners currently assigned to a CCC who have more than 150 days remaining to serve are being relocated to more restrictive facilities.
Ms. Matthews received notification of her proposed transfer approximately thirty days in advance. She challenged the policy through the BOP administrative remedy process, but despite the pending appeal, she received notification that BOP was reassigning her to the Federal Correctional Institute — Geiger at Spokane, Washington on January 24, 2003. On January 23, Ms. Matthews filed a complaint and petition for writ of habeas corpus and filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent her reassignment.
On January 27, 2003, the Court granted Ms. Matthews' request for a Temporary Restraining Order. Within the Temporary Restraining Order's ten-day period, the BOP consented to extend the TRO until February 14, 2003. The Court held a hearing on the merits of the motion on February 12, 2003.
GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS
Ms. Matthews is entitled to a preliminary injunction if she demonstrates that she is likely to succeed on the merits and may suffer irreparable injury, or that serious questions exist on the merits and the balance of hardships tips in her favor. See Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda, 59 F.3d 902, 913 (9th Cir. 1995). The two tests are not separate but represent a sliding scale in which the required probability of success on the merits decreases as the degree of harm increases. Id. "Under any formulation of the test, the plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant treat of irreparable injury." Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985).
DISCUSSION
The Court's preliminary review of the issues in the case convinces it that Ms. Matthews raises serious questions about the Bureau of Prisons' change in policy. Ms. Matthews presents strong arguments that the Bureau of Prisons may have exceeded its rule-making capacities by creating a retroactive rule without providing public notice and affording no opportunity to comment in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The BOP's change in policy may further violate Ms. Matthews' Due Process and Equal Protection rights and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, it appears that the Court was without authority to impose the sentence of direct commitment to the Port of Hope and that Ms. Matthews' sentence is therefore illegal and should be vacated. See United States v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758, 777-78 n. 23 (3d Cir. 2000) (noting that a district court's order of confinement at a CCC as satisfying the requirement for imprisonment would be clearly erroneous and that "a district court has no power to dictate or impose any place of confinement for the imprisonment portion of the sentence")
The Court also finds based upon its preliminary review of the motion, that Ms. Matthews would suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of hardships clearly tips in her favor. Ms. Matthews currently benefits from the work release program and is employed full-time as a hostess and cashier at the Owyhee Plaza Hotel in Boise, Idaho. Should Ms. Matthews be reassigned to FCI-Geiger, she would lose her job and forfeit the wages that currently help support her minor children now under her family's care. Furthermore, transfer to FCI-Geiger would effectively remove her visitation privileges. The FCI-Geiger's visitation policy is far more restrictive, and the distance to Spokane, Washington is so far that Ms. Matthews' mother and children would be unable to visit. While Ms. Matthews would be irreparably harmed, the BOP would suffer little or no harm should she remain at Port of Hope.
In conclusion, the Court finds, based on its preliminary review of the record, that Ms. Matthews has raised serious questions as to the Bureau of Prisons' policy of reassignment, as well as the legality of the sentence imposed by the Court. The Court also finds that the balance of hardships tip decidedly in Ms. Matthews' favor and that she faces a substantial risk of irreparable harm should she be reassigned. The Court will therefore grant Ms. Matthews' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 as set out below. The Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect until further order of the Court.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 3) is hereby GRANTED. Defendants are temporarily enjoined from reassigning Meilssa Matthews from the Port of Hope in Nampa, Idaho.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect until further order of the Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.