Olson v. Puckett

KIMBERLY OLSON, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT PUCKETT, SR., et al., Defendants.

No. 2:21-CV-1482-KJM-DMC

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 17, 2021

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Kimberly Olson, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Before the Court is Olson's motion for a temporary restraining order. See ECF No. 3. The Court has construed it as a motion for injunctive relief. See ECF Nos. 7, 12. Olson moves for an injunction mandating restoration of water service to her property. See ECF No. 3. She alleges that Defendants removed her home's water meter and stopped her water service without notice. See ECF No. 1. Olson, who is disabled and of limited means, alleges that she now has little or no access to water. See ECF Nos. 1, 3, 4.

Defendants do not substantively oppose the motion in writing. ECF No 17. Instead, they focus Olson's allegedly untimely service of the motion, as well as her vexatious litigation history. See id. Defendants concede they received copies of the motion. See Id.

Evidence subsequently presented by Defendants at the time of the hearing of this motion indicates Olson received notice before termination of her water service. Defendants, however skipped steps in the termination process and Olson faces significant hardship without water. The undersigned thus recommends granting some limited injunctive relief to Plaintiff here.

I. BACKGROUND

This case is but the latest entry in a series of lawsuits initiated by Olson against local government entities and officials in Siskiyou County, California. It is one of several that she has brought against Hornbrook Community Services District. And it is the fourth case of hers before this Court specifically. Olson is a prolific pro se litigant. Notwithstanding, this motion is not about Olson's litigiousness. It is about water.

A. Procedural History

Olson filed suit on August 18, 2021. See ECF No. 1. Olson sues six defendants by name: (1) Hornbrook Community Services District (HCSD); (2) Robert Puckett, Sr.; (3) Clint Dingman; (4) Michele Hanson; (5) Melissa Tulledo; and (6) Bruce's Towing/Radiator & Dismantling (Bruce's Towing).^[1] See id. at 1-3. She also sues twenty John Does. See id.

Concurrently with the complaint, Olson filed her motion for injunctive relief seeking restoration of water service to her property, as well as a declaration in support of the motion. See ECF Nos. 3 and 4. The Chief Judge referred the case to this Court on August 20, 2021. See ECF No. 5. The Court, on August 23, 2021, ordered Olson to serve copies of the motion and declaration by 5:00 p.m. on August 25, 2021. See ECF No. 7. Proof of service was due by August 31, 2021. Id. The Court also directed summons to issue. See ECF No. 8. Olson had the option of requesting service of the complaint on Defendants by the United States Marshal or serving it herself. See id. at 3.

The same day that the Court issued its service order, Olson filed a statement saying she had served the motion on HCSD, Puckett, Dingman, and Hanson prior to the Court's order, on August 20, 2021. See ECF No. 11 at 1-2. She served those defendants by mail and email. See id. at 2. The Court subsequently issued its show cause order on August 26, 2021, directing Defendants to reply to the motion by September 3, 2021. See ECF No. 12 at 1. Olson had until September 8, 2021 to file a response. See id. The Court set a hearing on the motion for September 14, 2021. See id.

Later in the day on August 26, Olson filed a new certificate of service stating that she had served Tulledo and Bruce's Towing by mail on August 24, 2021. See ECF No. 13. On August 30, 2021, she filed a “notice of compliance” with the Court's order directing summons to issue. See ECF No. 14. Returns of service were filed on August 30, 2021, as well. See ECF No. 15. Roger Gifford served copies of the complaint on Defendants in person on August 26, 2021. See id. at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10.

Defendants concede Olson sent copies of the motion by email on August 20, 2021, and that at least some of them knew of the motion by August 23, 2021. See ECF Nos. 17, pg. 3; 17-4, pg. 2. Robert Puckett, in a supporting declaration, states that Gifford served him copies of both the complaint and the motion. See ECF No. 17-5, pg. 2. In any event, Defendants appear to concede they received copies of the motion by August 26, 2021, at the latest. See ECF No. 17, pg. 2.

B. Olson's Allegations

As stated, Olson identifies six defendants: (1) HCSD; (2) Puckett; (3) Dingman; (4) Hanson; (5) Tulledo; and (6) Bruce's Towing. See ECF No. 1, pgs. 1-3. She includes the John Does. See id.

Hornbrook is a little community of a couple hundred people in Siskiyou County, California, near California's border with Oregon. HCSD is a public entity that provides water to Hornbrook residents. See ECF No. 1, pg. 2. Olson lives in Siskiyou County and is an HCSD customer. See id. Puckett, Hanson, and Tulledo are all members of HCSD's board of directors. See id. at 3. Dingman is HCSD's employee, variously acting as general manager and general systems operator. See id. at 3, n.8. Bruce's Towing is a private business operating out of Siskiyou County. See id. at 2. The John Does are deputies of the Siskiyou County Sheriff's Office and other state agency officials. See id. at 3 & n.6; 10 & n.4.

Olson has been an HCSD customer since 2006. See id. at 3. A copy of her initial payment check and application for service are attached to her declaration in support of the motion. See ECF No. 4, pgs. 5-6. A couple of years after Olson first became an HCSD customer, her water meter malfunctioned. See ECF No. 4pg. 1. HCSD asked an excessive price for a new meter, according to Olson, so she claims she purchased one secondhand. See id. That meter was installed at her own expense. See id.

Olson is disabled. See ECF Nos. 1, pg. 6 & n.15; 3, pgs. 2, 4; 4 pg. 2. She is significantly mobility impaired due to spinal damage and consequent surgeries. See ECF Nos. 1, pg. 6 & n.15; 3, pg. 4; 4, pg. 2. She lives on a diminutive, fixed income. See ECF Nos. 1, pg. 6 & n.15; 3, pg. 2, 4; 4, pg. 2.

In the complaint, Olson makes numerous allegations against Defendants.^[2] See ECF No. 1 at 4-11. Around July 20 and 23, 2021, Defendants allegedly trespassed onto Olson's property. See ECF No. 1, pg. 4. There, they confiscated Olson's water meter. See id. They then shut off water service to Olson's home entirely and without any notice beforehand. See id. at 5. Defendants further precluded any water supply to Olson's home by plugging the water pipes to her property. See id. Plaintiff contends that they did so by plugging property-side pipes, rather than water lines leading to the property. See id. The property-side pipes only connect to the water meter, not to any public lines. See ECF No. 4, pg. 2. Defendants also allegedly informed Olson that neither she nor anyone else could use certain portions of her driveway (presumably around water access areas) without their vehicles being towed. See ECF Nos. 1, pgs. 4-5; 4, n.11; 3, pgs. 1-2, 4 & n.3. Plaintiff also contends that in the course of the events at issue a vehicle was towed.

Olson asserts that she later requested restoration of water service and an explanation of its abrupt termination. See ECF No. 1, pg. 5. Allegedly, Defendants provided neither. See id. The monthly billing statement that Olson received after Defendants shut off her water supply offered no explanation. See id. The statement identified no fines or delinquent payments. See id. Because the bill was uninformative, Olson paid part of her bill by check and sent it to HCSD demanding her water service be restored. See ECF No. 4, pgs. 3, 11, 13. HCSD cashed the check but did not restart her service. See id. at 3. Olson has never before had her water supply shut off other than for maintenance. See id. at 1.

Thus, Olson charges that she has been left without a consistent water supply. See ECF No. 1, pgs. 5-6. She has had to borrow money and expend her limited income to erect temporary pumps, plumbing, and storage for potable water. See id. While Olson has also been able to contract for some delivery of water, her limited means make the pumps and deliveries only temporary, emergency solutions. See id. at 6 & n.15.

The unreliable access to water, Olson alleges, is especially dangerous because of the heat and fires impacting Siskiyou County. See id. at 5. Temperatures regularly exceed 105 degrees. See id. The Governor also issued a Declaration of Disaster for Siskiyou County due to the fires ravaging Northern California.^[3] See id. Olson (and her property) already survived 2018's Klamathon Fire, which was only possible because her caregiver and neighbors had access to garden hoses. See id. at 5, n.14. Though not expressly averred, the implication of Olson's allegations is that fire remains a serious, plausible threat to her home and life. See id. at 5 & n.14; see also ECF No. 3, pgs. 3, 5 & n.6. She has also been unable to combat COVID-19 because she cannot wash and maintain appropriate sanitary conditions. See id. at 5.

Most of the additional allegations in Olson's complaint concern Defendants' motivations, the causes of action brought because of Defendants' actions, and Olson's requested relief. See ECF No. 1, pgs. 6-22. It is germane however, that at the core of Olson's complaint is the assertion that Defendants removed her water meter without cause, and out of retaliation for her many lawsuits.^[4] See ECF Nos. 1, pg. 6 & n.16; 3, pg. 6 & n.8. Her motion for injunctive relief, as well her declaration in support of the motion, largely restate the above: Defendants allegedly shut off her water without explanation, leaving her in a dangerous predicament...