Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01992/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01992-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY PAUL SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MUNICIPALITY OF FRESNO COUNTY, 

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00651-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF

(Doc. Nos. 8, 11)

Plaintiff Gary Paul Smith is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to halt 

restitution payments that he claimed were “illegally ordered” by the Fresno County Superior 

Court. (Doc. No. 8.) On September 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an “Order to Show Cause for 

Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order,” in which plaintiff requested an order 

from the court enjoining defendants “to stop taking 55% restitution and return all monies they’ve 

taken from me since 4 or 5 2004.” (Doc. No. 11.) The assigned magistrate judge construed 

plaintiff’s filings as motions seeking injunctive relief and issued findings and recommendations 

on November 26, 2019 recommending that both motions be denied on the grounds that: (1) the 

Case 2:21-cv-01992-DJC-AC Document 33 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

court lacks jurisdiction to enter the injunction plaintiff seeks because his complaint alleges claims 

based on deliberate indifference to his medical needs and does not mention injunctive relief 

relating to restitution ordered in his state court criminal proceeding; and (2) plaintiff failed to 

show a likelihood of success on the merits particularly because his claim challenging the validity 

of the restitution aspect of his judgment of conviction in state court would be barred under Heck 

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), and plaintiff had failed to allege a causal link between 

the defendants and the alleged constitutional deprivation as well as whether they played a role in 

the imposition of the challenged restitution order. (Doc. No. 22.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 4.) To date, no objections to the 

pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now 

passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 26, 2019 (Doc. No. 22) 

are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order filed on June 26, 2019 (Doc. 

No. 8) is denied; and 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed on September 18, 2019 (Doc. No. 11) 

is also denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01992-DJC-AC Document 33 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 2