United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
L. Christensen, Chief Judge.
States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston entered his Order
and Findings and Recommendations in this case on June 24,
2019, recommending that Plaintiff Chad Eric Bjork's
motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. (Doc. 16 at
10.) Bjork filed an objection and is entitled to de novo
review of those findings and recommendations to which he has
specifically objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Absent
objection, this Court reviews findings and recommendations
for clear error. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists if the
Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed." United States v.
Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted). "A party makes a proper objection by
identifying the parts of the magistrate's disposition
that the party finds objectionable and presenting legal
argument and supporting authority, such that the district
court is able to identify the issues and the reasons
supporting a contrary result." Montana Shooting
Sports Ass'n v. Holder, 2010 WL 4102940, at *2 (D.
Mont. Oct. 18, 2010) (citation omitted).
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."
Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555
U.S. 7, 20 (2008). "A preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing,
carries the burden of persuasion." Lopez v.
Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
Bjork seeks an injunction which would require Montana State
Prison officials to cease disciplining him in retaliation for
exercising his constitutional rights, clear his institutional
record of all disciplinary infractions since August 2017,
prohibit Bjork from being placed in punitive segregation,
prohibit Bjork from being reclassified at a higher security
level, and provide Bjork with certain medications and
treatment. (Doc. 4-2 at 1-2.) When a party seeks an
injunction that goes beyond maintaining the status quo
pending a determination on the merits and requests an
injunction which would require affirmative conduct by the
opposing party, the injunction is "subject to heightened
scrutiny and should not be issued unless the facts and law
clearly favor the moving party." Dahl v. HEM
Pharmaceuticals Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Additionally, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
when considering injunctive relief, the Court is to
"give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public
safety or the operation of a criminal justice system"
which could result from the injunction and must narrowly draw
any injunction so that it is the least intrusive means
necessary to correct the harm at issue. 18 U.S.C. §
Johnston determined that the injunctive relief Bjork
requested would both require affirmative action on the part
of Defendants and "potentially interfere with the
operation of the prison and therefore have an adverse impact
on public safety and/or the operation of the criminal justice
system." (Doc. 16 at 7.) Further, Judge Johnston
determined that Bjork had provided no more than conclusory
statements in support of his request for injunctive relief
relating to his medical needs. (Id.) As a result of
these problems, Judge Johnston recommended denying
Bjork's request. (Id. at 8.) The Court agrees
with Judge Johnston's assessment.
objection consists largely of more conclusory statements
alleging that Defendants are violating a number of his
constitutional rights. For instance, Bjork claims that
"[disciplinary actions against [him] for filing
grievances and legal actions against the Defendants is a
Violation of [his] First Amendment Right to access the Courts
and [is] direct evidence of continuing retaliation against
[him]." (Doc. 25 at 1.) However, merely stating that
Defendants are retaliating against him and violating his
rights does not make it so. Nor is it evidence that this is
happening. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to connect his
conclusory statements to any argument indicating which of
Judge Johnston's findings or analyses he takes issue
with. As previously stated, the undersigned agrees with Judge
Johnston. Bjork's conclusory statements do not provide
reason to reach a contrary to result. Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED that Judge Johnston's Order and Findings and
Recommendations (Doc. 16) are ADOPTED IN FULL and Bjork's
Motion (Doc. 4) is DENIED.
 Bjork attached as an exhibit to his
objection an unsigned copy of a "Refusal of
Treatment" form which he claims shows that Defendants
are refusing to treat his ailments. (Docs. 25 at 2; 25-1 at
1.) This is the one piece of evidence presented in his
otherwise conclusory objection. However, this form appears to
have been given to Bjork after he refused
recommended treatment, not after Defendants refused to treat
him. (See Doc. 25-1 at 1.) As ...