Olson v. Puckett
| Decision Date | 30 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-CV-1482-KJM-DMC |
| Parties | KIMBERLY OLSON, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT PUCKETT, SR., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the Court are the following motions and associated filings:
Both motions have been submitted on the record without oral argument.
Plaintiff's third motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 72, which is not directly related to either the prior motion or pending motion, will be addressed separately.
Plaintiff initiated this action with a pro se complaint filed on August 18, 2021. See ECF No. 1. With her complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and declaration in support thereof. See ECF No. 3 and 4. On August 20, 2021, the District Judge issued a minute order referring Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order to the undersigned. See ECF No. 5.
On August 23, 2021, the undersigned issued orders granting Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directing Plaintiff to effect service of her motion for a temporary restraining order on the named defendants. See ECF Nos. 6 and 7. The Court also issued an order directing that the original complaint be served on the named defendants by the United States Marshal. See ECF No. 8.
Following compliance with the Court's order directing service of Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court issued an order directing Defendants to show cause why Plaintiff's motion should not be granted. See ECF No. 12. A briefing schedule was established, and the matter was set for hearing before the undersigned in Redding, California on September 14, 2021. See id. On September 8, 2021, the Court denied Defendants' request for additional time and confirmed that the hearing remained on calendar for September 14 as originally scheduled. See ECF No. 18.
Following the September 14 hearing, Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order was taken under submission. See ECF No. 24 (hearing minutes).
On September 17, 2021, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order be construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief and, so construed, be granted. See ECF No. 29. Specifically, the undersigned recommended as follows:
Despite the claimed exigence of the water issue and urgent need for injunctive relief, and despite the Court's findings and recommendations in her favor, on September 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court's findings and recommendations. See ECF No. 40. This triggered a further 14-day period within which Defendants could respond to Plaintiff's objections, which Defendants did on October 14, 2021. See ECF No. 45. On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants' response to Plaintiff's objections. See ECF No. 49. On December 6, 2021, the District Judge adopted the September 17, 2021, findings and recommendations in full. See ECF No. 52.
During the time Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief was being litigated and decided, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on October 6, 2021. See ECF No. 44. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint on October 20, 2021. See ECF No. 47. Plaintiff filed her motion for civil contempt, sanctions, and renewed request for injunctive relief on February 4, 2022. See ECF No. 67. Both motions are fully briefed and have been submitted for decision without oral argument.
The action currently proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint. See ECF No. 44. As with the original complaint, Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Clint Dingman, (2) Robert Puckett, Sr., (3) Michele Hanson, (4) Melissa Tulledo, and (5) the Hornbrook Community Services District (HCSD). See id. at 1. Defendants Puckett, Dingman, Hanson, and Tulledo are “the Directors and employees of Defendant Hornbrook Community Services District.” Id. at 2. Specifically, Defendants Puckett, Hanson, and Tulledo are respectively President, Secretary, and Director of the HCSD board, and are sometimes referred to as the “Board Defendants.” Id. at 3. Defendant Dingman is “the HCSD's Systems Operator, shift operator, . . . and/or water plant operator.” Id. at 3, n.8. The HCSD is “a public entity providing domestic water to the community of Hornbrook.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that she is a “water customer of the HCSD, which supplies the only source of potable water” to her home. Id. She also states that she is disabled, suffering from “mobility and other disabilities as a result of spinal damage.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges that between July 19-23, 2021, there was no “usable water” in the distribution system on her block, and “no water flowing from the taps” in her home. Id. at 5. She states that during this time, Defendants trespassed onto her land, and cut her home off from the HCSD water system. Id. According to Plaintiff, they also plugged and locked off a “residence side” supply pipe, which was Plaintiff's personal property, in order to prevent her from accessing any alternative water supply. Id. at 5-6. She claims that in the process of shutting off her water supply, officials took her “water meter, a utility van belonging to a plumbing contractor[1] . . . and a 2001 Honda CR-V belonging to [her] Personal Caregiver.” Id. at 5 n.11. “Defendants also destroyed some of Plaintiff's landscaping and bushes.” Id. At the time of the alleged seizure of property, HCSD and Defendant Puckett told Plaintiff that no one could use certain portions of her driveway, and that any vehicles parked in those sections would be seized. Id. at 6.
Plaintiff wrote to the HSCD on August 4, 2021, asking for explanation, the return of any seized property, and the restoration of her water service. See id. She did not receive a response. See id. Her billing statement from HCSD after the “discontinuation of water service [did] not show any fines,” or other reason for the shut-off. Id. at 7.
As a result of the water shut-off, Plaintiff claims that she “has had to borrow and expend substantial sums in constructing a system of temporary pumps, . . . and storage for potable water.” Id. She has also spent money to “have potable water delivered by truck.” Id. Plaintiff also states that this system only currently works because temperatures remain above freezing. Id. at 7, n.16.
On September 17, 2021, this Court issued findings and recommendations granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and ordering that her water service be restored. See id. at 29. As outlined above, the findings and recommendations provided that HCSD return Plaintiff's water meter and limit her water usage in accordance with whatever “generally applicable” use restrictions would apply. See id. at 19. It was further recommended that Plaintiff be ordered not to tamper with or obstruct her water meter, and “not to interfere with HCSD officials undertaking lawful, routine duties concerning her water meter.” Id.
Plaintiff addresses the Court's recommendations in her first amended complaint, which was filed before the findings and recommendations were adopted in full by the District Judge. According to Plaintiff, the HCSD did not restore service for several days. See ECF No. 44, pg. 7. When Defendants did return water service to Plaintiff, they installed a flow restrictor which limited her to the use of “~1/6 of a gallon each minute, and about 4 gallons per day.” Id. “Plaintiff notified the HCSD, and its President, Robert Puckett,” of the alleged issues with the water supply. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial