(PC) Gardner v. Newsom et al

Filing 53

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's 52 Motion to Quash and Request to Present Relevant Evidence be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/10/2020. Objections to F&R due within FOURTEEN DAYS. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONDEL DELBERT GARDNER,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

GAVIN NEWSOM, et.al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00240-NONE-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO QUASH AND REQUEST TO PRESENT
RELEVANT EVIDENCE BE DENIED
(ECF No. 52)

Plaintiff Rondel Delbert Gardner is proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled, “motion to quash and request the

20

evidence that is relevant to the case and the interest of justice,” filed September 8, 2020. In his

21

motion, Plaintiff states, in part, “I sending this forth with as evidence that is relavant [sic] to the case a

22

coersive [sic] discion [sic] of the court in my favor be judgement of the court all document are my of

23

interest of the cour[t].” (ECF No. 52 at 6.) Because Plaintiff seeks judgment in his favor, the Court

24

construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for declaratory judgment.

25

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, “[t]he court may order a speedy hearing of a

26

declaratory judgment action.” A declaratory judgment allows a party to seek a ruling on his

27

prospective rights before an “actual controversy ... has ... reached a stage at which either party may

28

seek a coercive remedy and in cases where a party who could sue for coercive relief has not yet done
1

1

so.” Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir.1996). Declaratory judgment

2

allows the party to clarify what his obligations are, so that he can avoid future lawsuits. Id. A

3

declaratory judgment is appropriate “whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. §

4

2201; Fed.R.Civ.P. 57 (“The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a declaratory

5

judgment that is otherwise appropriate.”).

6

Declaratory relief is discretionary in nature. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Dizol, 133

7

F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc) (citation omitted) (“The Act gave the federal courts

8

competence to make a declaration of rights; it did not impose a duty to do so.”). Rule 57 of the

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that “[the existence of another adequate

10

remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate.” (Italics

11

added). In exercising its discretion to decide whether to grant declaratory relief, the court must

12

consider, among other factors, whether a declaratory judgment will serve a useful purpose. See Wilton

13

v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 288 (1995).

14

In this instance, Plaintiff's “Rule 57 Motion” for a declaratory ruling or judgment is premature

15

because Defendants have not yet filed an answer and the time to do so has not yet expired. Thus, the

16

Court has not yet issued the discovery and scheduling order. Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks a

17

dispositive rulings on either the facts or the law on issues purportedly raised by declaratory-relief-

18

related issues, those issues have not yet been properly brought before the court or resolved by

19

admission of the Defendants, stipulation of the parties, or a duly noticed motion filed in accordance

20

with the yet to be issued scheduling order. There is simply no basis to grant Plaintiff’s Rule 57 motion

21

for declaratory judgment.

22
23
24

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for declaratory
judgment be DENIED.
This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge

25

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

26

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections

27

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

28

Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
2

1

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

2

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

September 10, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3