(PS) Olson v. Puckett ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIMBERLY OLSON, No. 2:21-CV-01482-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT PUCKETT, SR., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was referred to a 18 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules. 19 On August 31, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within 21 the time specified therein. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have been 22 filed. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 25 findings and recommendations regarding plaintiff’s motion for contempt sanctions or a further 26 preliminary injunction to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The court notes 27 plaintiff does not put forward any argument objecting to the findings and recommendations’ 28 conclusion regarding that motion. In light of plaintiff’s apparent concession that defendants are 1 currently providing sufficient water service, see Reply, ECF No, 73, the court denies the motion 2 without prejudice to renewal. 3 The court otherwise declines to adopt the findings and recommendations in whole. There 4 is an apparent discrepancy between the magistrate judge’s discussion of whether plaintiff’s 5 complaint complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, see ECF No. 109 at 15–17, and the 6 Rule 12(b)(6) analysis of whether the complaint states a claim based on its factual allegations, see 7 id. at 17–28. On the one hand, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of the entire operative 8 complaint under Rule 8 because its allegations are “vague and conclusory” and lack sufficient 9 facts “to support any claim.” Id. at 16. On the other hand, the Magistrate Judge specifically finds 10 sufficient facts in the complaint to support a Fourth and Fifth Amendment claim, a Due Process 11 claim and an Equal Protection claim when analyzing them in the context of Rule 12(b)(6). See id. 12 at 20, 21–22, 22–23. 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a “short and plain statement of the 14 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Its inquiry is concerned with giving the 15 defendant sufficient notice about the claim and the facts. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 16 (1957). However, to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain 17 “[s]ufficient factual matter,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), to make the claim 18 “plausible,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). To the extent there is a 19 difference between the standards imposed by Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6), this court interprets the 20 Rule 8 requirement as the lesser of the two. The court therefore concludes the Magistrate Judge’s 21 explanation for why plaintiff states sufficient facts to support a Fourth and Fifth Amendment 22 claim, a Due Process claim and an Equal Protection claim justifies denying the motion to 23 dismiss those claims. In other words, those claims may proceed. 24 The court thus adopts the Magistrate Judge’s analysis on the sufficiency of plaintiff’s 25 allegations to state those three claims, see ECF No. 109 at 20, 21–22, 22–23, as well as the 26 Magistrate Judge’s analysis about why plaintiff’s other claims are insufficiently pled, see id. at 27 17–18, 23–24, 24–25, 26–27. The court also adopts the Magistrate Judge’s analysis rejecting 28 defendants’ jurisdictional argument, see id. at 27–28, and rejecting defendants’ cursory argument 1 || □□ plaintiffs state law claims, see id. at 28-29. Because the court permits plaintiff to proceed 2 || with some federal claims, the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. 3 Further, because plaintiff has pled sufficient facts for some but not all claims, she may 4 || choose to proceed with the sufficient claims or to amend the complaint to include those claims 5 || and add factual allegations in support of the dismissed claims. Within thirty days, plaintiff must 6 || either notify the court she plans to proceed with her claims based on the Fourth and Fifth 7 || Amendment, Equal Protection and Due Process as well as her state law claims as pled in her 8 | current complaint or file an amended complaint. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions or, in the alternative, for a further preliminary 11 || injunction, ECF No. 67, is denied without prejudice; 12 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 47, is denied with respect to plaintiff's 13 | Fourth and Fifth Amendment claim, Due Process claim and Equal Protection claim, as analyzed 14 | mECF No. 109 at 20, 21-22, 22—23, and denied with respect to plaintiffs state law claims. The 15 || motion is granted with respect to plaintiff's remaining claims, with leave to amend; and 16 3. Within thirty days, plaintiff must either notify the court she is only proceeding on 17 || the claims properly pled as identified above or file an amended complaint. 18 | DATED: March 22, 2023. 19 20 l ti / ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28