United States Department of Justice, Hostage Rescue Team v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-03134-JVS-JC Document 7 Filed 05/19/22 Page1lof2 Page ID#:31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:22-cv-03134-JVS-JC Date May 19, 2022 Title United States Department of Justice, Hostage Rescue Team, et al. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Present: The Honorable = Jacqueline Chooljian, United States Magistrate Judge Kerri Hays None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendant: none none Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE In this action, California prisoner Justin Marcus Zinman, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) purportedly on behalf of three Plaintiffs: (1) the United States Department of Justice Hostage Rescue Team (“HRT”); (2) the United States Department of Homeland Security National Security Agency (“NSA”); and (3) the United States Department of Defense American Media Intelligence Agency (“AMI”). Zinman purports to be doing business as “American Media Intelligence”.' Zinman appears to claim that he is a federal agent who has been sent undercover to infiltrate the CDCR in order to obtain an honest and sufficiently detailed picture of how CDCR’s policies and operations are run and appears to raise challenges to certain such policies and operations in the Complaint. While an individual person may represent him/herself in a legal action, no collective group, organization or entity of any kind may appear in any action or proceeding as such unless represented by an attorney permitted to practice before this Court. See Local Rule 83-2.2 (“Only individuals may represent themselves pro se. No organization or entity of any other kind... may appear in any action or proceeding unless represented by an attorney permitted to practice before this Court .. .); see also Rowland v, California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (“[A] corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”); Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“It is well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by [28 U.S.C.] § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”) (collecting cases and affirming dismissal without prejudice because individual pro se plaintiff may not pursue claims on behalf of others/entity). /I/ /I/

'It is not entirely clear whether AMI is the same entity as Zinman’s dba. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page | of 2

Case 2:22-cv-03134-JVS-JC Document 7 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:22-cv-03134-JVS-JC Date May 19, 2022 Title United States Department of Justice, Hostage Rescue Team, et al. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation In light of the foregoing, Zinman is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by not later than June 10, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed because Zinman may not pursue claims on behalf of the named Plaintiffs at least because he is proceeding pro se and because such entities may not themselves appear without counsel. Zinman is cautioned that the failure timely to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for the reasons explained above, and/or based upon Zinman’s failure to comply with this Order to Show Case and/or Zinman’s lack of prosecution. IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2