(PS) Olson v. Puckett

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIMBERLY R. OLSON, No. 2:21-cv-01482-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT PUCKETT, SR., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Kimberly Olson, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action against 18 defendants Robert Puckett, Sr., Clint Dingman, Michelle Hanson, Melissa Tulledo and the 19 Hornbrook Community Services District (HCSD). The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules. 21 On February 10, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on the parties and contained notice that they may file objections within the specified 23 time period. See Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 123. Plaintiff filed untimely 24 objections, see Objs., ECF No. 136 (filed June 12, 2023); Order, ECF No. 134 (granting 45-day 25 extension of time from April 25, 2023), although she may have been confused about the deadline 26 due to the court’s amended order, see Am. Order, ECF No. 135 (filed May 3, 2023). The court 27 thus considers plaintiff’s objections. Defendants have responded to the objections. See Resp., 28 ECF No. 137. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 3 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 4 The magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief 5 primarily because she has not shown irreparable harm. See Findings and Recommendations at 6 18–21. She seeks to enjoin defendants from enforcing provisions of HCSD Resolutions 2021-02 7 and 2021-09, which purportedly could permit defendants to terminate water service to plaintiff’s 8 home without notice or a hearing. See Mot. at 5–6, ECF No. 72. She relies in part on defendants’ 9 prior application of the Resolutions against her, which allegedly allowed defendants to restrict her 10 water service without due process. Id. at 2–4. 11 However, the magistrate judge points out plaintiff is under court order to comply with 12 HCSD’s restrictions, Findings and Recommendations at 19–20, and the HCSD is under court 13 order to provide plaintiff with water in compliance with applicable law, see Order, ECF No. 52. 14 As a result, even if the disputed HCSD Resolutions allow defendants to cut off plaintiff’s water 15 without due process, defendants presently may not do so because court orders prohibit plaintiff 16 and defendants from taking the antecedent actions: plaintiff must comply with HCSD restrictions 17 and the HCSD must provide water to plaintiff. Moreover, even if the HCSD previously violated 18 plaintiff’s procedural due process rights, she has not shown the HCSD is sufficiently likely to 19 violate her rights again; any prospect of future injury is speculative. See City of Los Angeles v. 20 Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) (“Absent a sufficient likelihood that [plaintiff] will again be 21 wronged in a similar way, [plaintiff] is no more entitled to an injunction than any other citizen of 22 [defendant’s jurisdiction.]”). There is thus no risk of immediate harm. However, as the 23 magistrate judge notes, this decision does not resolve the merits of plaintiff’s due process claim; 24 plaintiff’s “arguments may wait until trial for resolution.” Findings and Recommendations at 20. 25 In plaintiff’s objections, she raises two pertinent issues. First, she claims the magistrate 26 judge errs by focusing on “the details of Plaintiff’s water service, rather than analyzing” the 27 sufficiency of the Resolutions’ process. Objs. at 1. However, the magistrate judge appropriately 28 analyzed the details of plaintiff’s water service because doing so was necessary to assess whether 1 | she faced any immediate risk of losing water service due to inadequate process. Second, plaintiff 2 || contends she need not show a risk of losing water service because the deprivation of a 3 || constitutional right is itself irreparable harm. See id. at 6 (citing Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 4 | 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012)). In this regard, she clarifies the alleged constitutional deprivation is 5 || the insufficient process prior to termination of water service, rather than the termination of water 6 || service itself. /d. at 1-2, 6. This argument is unpersuasive, too. Although the deprivation of a 7 || constitutional right may constitute irreparable harm, plaintiff still must show she faces an 8 | immediate risk of a deprivation of her constitutional rights. But here, if the parties comply with 9 || the court’s previous preliminary injunction, see Order, ECF No. 52, plaintiff has not shown she 10 || faces an imminent risk of HCSD’s shutting off or reducing her water service under the HCSD 11 | Resolutions. To the contrary, on the record before the court, the parties’ compliance with the 12 || court’s previous order should, in effect, prohibit the enforcement of the HCSD Resolutions 13 | against plaintiff. For this reason, the court adopts the findings and recommendations and denies 14 | without prejudice plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 10, 2023, are adopted in full; 17 2. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 72, is DENIED; and 18 3. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial 19 || proceedings. 20 | DATED: August 28, 2023. 21 22 33 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28