Justin Marcus Zinman v. Simi Valley Police Department

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 31, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-09442
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-09442-JVS-JC Document 12 Filed 01/31/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUSTIN MARCUS ZINMAN, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-09442-JVS-JC ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 13 v. ) ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED ) 14 SIMI VALLEY POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 __________________________ ) 17 On December 6, 2021, Justin Marcus Zinman, proceeding pro se filed a 18 Proposed Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary 19 Restraining Order and a Declaration of Justin Marcus Zinman (“Declaration”) 20 which the District Judge construed to be a Request for a Temporary Restraining 21 Order and Preliminary Injunction and denied without prejudice on December 13, 22 2021. (Docket Nos. 1, 2, 10).1 Zinman has not yet filed a Complaint even though 23 he represented in his Declaration that he would do so by not later than December 24 24, 2021. (Declaration at 3). 25 /// 26 27 1The District Judge concurrently denied without prejudice Zinman’s December 10, 2021 28 Motion for Leave to File Amended Preliminary Injunction/TRO. (Docket Nos. 6, 7, 10). 1 Case 2:21-cv-09442-JVS-JC Document 12 Filed 01/31/22 Page 2of3 Page ID #:40

1 The exercise of federal jurisdiction under the Constitution depends on the 2 || existence of a case or controversy. United States Nat’l Bank v. Independent 3 || Insurance Agents of America, Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993); Johnson v. 4 | Weinberger, 851 F.2d 233, 235 (9th Cir. 1988) (Article III, Section 2 of the United 5 || States Constitution restricts adjudication in federal courts to cases and 6 || controversies). A case or controversy exists when one party demonstrates that it 7 || has suffered injury-in-fact which fairly can be traced to acts or omissions of the 8 || second party and when there is a substantial likelihood that the relief requested will 9 || redress the injury claimed. Johnson, 851 F.2d at 234. If the court does not have an 10 || actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. 11 jf Id. 12 Here, because Zinman has not actually filed a Complaint, there is no action 13 || or proceeding pending and no case or controversy to be heard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 | 3 (‘A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”’); Securities 15 || & Exchange Comm’n v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2007) (no action 16 || was commenced against individual when no complaint was filed against 17 || individual); Pacesetter Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 96 n.3 (9th 18 || Cir. 1982) (“A federal action is commenced by the filing of the complaint[.]’’); 19 | Matter of Warrant Authorizing Interception of Oral Communications Within the 20 || Premises Known as 165 Atwells Avenue, Providence, R.I., 673 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 21 || 1982) (per curiam) (“But since no complaint was ever filed in this case, the court 22 || did not have jurisdiction over any ordinary civil action.”). 23 Zinman is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within twenty (20) 24 || days why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on 25 || Zinman’s failure to file a Complaint/the absence of an actual case or controversy. 26 || Zinman’s filing of a Complaint by the foregoing deadline will constitute an 27 || adequate response to this Order to Show Cause. 28 ///

Case 2:21-cv-09442-JVS-JC Document 12 Filed 01/31/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:41

1 Zinman is cautioned that the failure timely to respond to this Order to 2 Show Cause or to show good cause may result in the dismissal of this matter 3 for lack of jurisdiction based on Zinman’s failure to file a Complaint/the 4 absence of an actual case or controversy. Zinman is further cautioned that his 5 failure timely to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the 6 dismissal of this matter based on Zinman’s failure to prosecute, and/or his 7 failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.2 9 10 DATED: January 31, 2022 11 12 _______________/s/___________________ 13 Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2This Order to Show Cause constitutes a non-dispositive ruling on a pretrial matter. To the 25 extent Zinman disagrees with it, he may file a motion for review by the assigned District Judge within fourteen (14) days. See Local Rule 72-2.1. To the extent he believes the Order to Show 26 Cause is dispositive, rather than non-dispositive, he has the right to object to this Court’s 27 determination that the Order to Show Cause is non-dispositive within fourteen (14) days. He will be foreclosed from challenging the Order to Show Cause if he does not seek review thereof, or 28 object thereto. 3