ARIK WILLIAMS v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00787
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARIK WILLIAMS, No. 2:25-cv-00787-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et MOTION FOR TEMPORARY al., RESTRAINING ORDER 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 2, 16) 16

17 18 Plaintiff Arik Williams is proceeding pro se in this civil action which he initiated by filing 19 his complaint on March 10, 2025. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 24, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2), in which he 23 requests immediate return of an impounded vehicle and an injunction against future impounding 24 of his vehicle on the basis that he does not possess a driver’s license, be denied. (Doc. No. 16.) 25 Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff had failed to show a likelihood of 26 success on the merits because plaintiff did not show that defendant Officer Wade had a 27 constitutionally insufficient basis for stopping his vehicle. (Id. at 5.) The magistrate judge 28 further found that plaintiff had not shown that he would be able to move his vehicle without 1 violating state laws as would be required to show that the impoundment of his vehicle was 2 unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. (Id. at 5–6.) The magistrate judge then concluded that 3 plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the impoundment of his vehicle likely violated due process 4 because he could not show what value additional procedural safeguards would have provided 5 him. (Id. at 6–7.) The magistrate judge rejected plaintiff’s contention that impoundment of his 6 vehicle “interferes with his fundamental constitutional right to travel.” (Id. at 7.) Finally, the 7 magistrate judge concluded that harms claimed by plaintiff were financial in nature and 8 accordingly were not irreparable harms that required the granting of emergency injunctive relief. 9 (Id. at 7–8.) 10 The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 11 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 12 9.) On May 6, 2025, plaintiff filed his objections to the pending findings and recommendations. 13 (Doc. No. 19.) Plaintiff’s objections largely focus on his frivolous argument that his right to 14 travel permits him to operate an unregistered vehicle without a license plate or driver’s license. 15 (See Doc. No. 19 at 3–6 (arguing that plaintiff’s truck was unlawfully stopped because, although 16 his vehicle did not have a requisite license plate it had a “valid United States Department of 17 Transportation [] number”), 11–16 (describing plaintiff’s frivolous right to travel theory)); see 18 also Andreaccio v. Weaver, 674 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1021 (D. Nev. 2023) (collecting cases and 19 holding that “[a]lthough there is a constitutional right to travel, that right is not unfettered, and it 20 does not include the right to drive a motor vehicle on public roads free from state-government 21 requirements for licensing and registration.”) (citing Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 22 1999)). In short, plaintiff’s objections fail to provide any basis upon which to reject the 23 magistrate judge’s well-reasoned findings and recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 25 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 26 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 27 record and by proper analysis. 28 ///// 1 For the reasons above, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2025 (Doc. No. 16) are 3 ADOPTED in full; 4 2. Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED; and 5 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 6 proceedings. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ March 16, 2026 Da A. 2, Arye 9 DALE A. DROZD 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28