(PC) Smith v. Municipality of Fresno County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY PAUL SMITH, No. 1:19-cv-00651-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 MUNICIPALITY OF FRESNO COUNTY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE et al., RELIEF 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 8, 11) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Gary Paul Smith is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 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 June 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to halt 22 restitution payments that he claimed were “illegally ordered” by the Fresno County Superior 23 Court. (Doc. No. 8.) On September 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an “Order to Show Cause for 24 Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order,” in which plaintiff requested an order 25 from the court enjoining defendants “to stop taking 55% restitution and return all monies they’ve 26 taken from me since 4 or 5 2004.” (Doc. No. 11.) The assigned magistrate judge construed 27 plaintiff’s filings as motions seeking injunctive relief and issued findings and recommendations 28 on November 26, 2019 recommending that both motions be denied on the grounds that: (1) the 1 | court lacks jurisdiction to enter the injunction plaintiff seeks because his complaint alleges claims 2 | based on deliberate indifference to his medical needs and does not mention injunctive relief 3 | relating to restitution ordered in his state court criminal proceeding; and (2) plaintiff failed to 4 | show a likelihood of success on the merits particularly because his claim challenging the validity 5 | of the restitution aspect of his judgment of conviction in state court would be barred under Heck 6 | v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), and plaintiff had failed to allege a causal link between 7 | the defendants and the alleged constitutional deprivation as well as whether they played a role in 8 | the imposition of the challenged restitution order. (Doc. No. 22.) The findings and 9 | recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 10 | to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (/d. at 4.) To date, no objections to the 11 || pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now 12 | passed. 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 14 | court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 15 | court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 16 Accordingly, 17 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 26, 2019 (Doc. No. 22) 18 are adopted in full; 19 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order filed on June 26, 2019 (Doc. 20 No. 8) is denied; and 21 3. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief filed on September 18, 2019 (Doc. No. 11) 22 is also denied. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ February 25, 2020 al, A □□□ 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28