(PC) Zinman v. Video AVSS/BWC in form of 33422

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00620
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUSTIN MARCUS ZINMAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00620-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION

14 VIDEO AVSS/BWC IN FORM OF 33422, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS et al., REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 15 INJUNCTION Defendants. 16 (ECF No. 5) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff Justin Marcus Zinman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 21 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis is currently due on or before June 30, 2025, (ECF No. 4), and the complaint has not yet 23 been screened. 24 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for injunction, filed June 20, 2025. (ECF 25 No. 5.) Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order to stay imposition of “c-status” (or any 26 corollary punishment) related to Plaintiff’s RVRs for “refusing assigned housing/delaying a peace 27 officer” or any and all relief the Court sees fit and/or can issue by law in this matter. Plaintiff 28 alleges that he is being retaliated against because he is being targeted by an underground policy 1 that results in the issuance of three RVRs, back-to-back, for the same offense or course of 2 conduct, without any evidence of wrongdoing. The target of the underground policy is then 3 denied due process in every related hearing thereafter so the state is justified (on paper) in 4 imposing the severe “c-status” punishment. Due process is violated by falsifying 5 communications and predetermining guilt so that any reasonable defense heard is virtually 6 impossible. The offense is associated with Plaintiff’s “refusal” to affirm “compatibility” with 7 convicted criminals who are not fighting for their innocence and for exercising lawful political 8 speech. On roughly June 14, 2025, Plaintiff was informed that he was scheduled to attend a 9 “committee” on Thursday June 19, 2025 where he would be “considered” for c-status. CDCR 10 might even use this impending imposition of c-status as a “reason” to justify unduly depriving 11 Plaintiff of books he specifically purchased as professional/legal material for cases he is actively 12 prosecuting. (Id.) 13 II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 14 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 15 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 16 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 17 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 18 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 19 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 20 omitted). 21 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 22 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 23 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 24 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 25 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 26 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 27 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 28 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 1 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 2 Federal right.” 3 Furthermore, the pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison 4 officials in general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. 5 United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties 6 in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 7 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 8 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The 9 Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 10 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 11 complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to 12 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant 13 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 14 As noted above, Plaintiff has not yet submitted an application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis or paid the filing fee for this action, and the complaint has not yet been screened. As 16 such, this action does not yet proceed on any cognizable claims, no defendant has been ordered 17 served, and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal 18 jurisdiction over any defendant or any other prison staff at any CDCR institution. Even if the 19 Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint stated cognizable claims, it appears the only defendants 20 named in this action are videos, rather than individual employees or staff at any CDCR 21 institution. (See ECF No. 1, p. 2 (listing as defendants: (1) “Video AVSS/BWC in form of 22 33422”; (2) “Video in log #7574644”; (3) “Video from before 4/21/2025”).) It does not appear, 23 and Plaintiff does not allege, that any of the listed defendants in the complaint have the authority 24 to enact the relief Plaintiff requests in his motion. 25 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to raise new claims related to retaliation, the filing of 26 false RVRs, or other actions taken by correctional staff that Plaintiff believes is placing him at 27 risk of further violations of his rights, this action is not the appropriate way to raise these claims. 28 If Plaintiff believes he has suffered new or additional violations of his constitutional rights, he 1 may wish to file a new and separate civil rights action raising those claims. 2 III. Order and Recommendation 3 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a 4 District Judge to this action. 5 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunction, 6 (ECF No. 5), be denied. 7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 9 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 10 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 12 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 13 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 14 limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 15 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 16 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 17 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19

20 Dated: June 26, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28