Zavala v. Reigosa ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO ZAVALA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01631 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS 13 v. CASE BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND DENYING 14 SALVADOR REIGOSA, et al., PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 Defendants. (Docs. 9, 10) 16 17 Antonio Zavala is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, which he 18 initiated by filing a complaint on November 8, 2021. (Doc. 1). On February 11, 2022, the 19 assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff did not state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 7 at 6-8.) The 20 magistrate judge informed Plaintiff that he “may file an amended complaint if he believes that 21 additional true factual allegations would state cognizable claims” or “choose to stand on his 22 complaint….” (Id. at 9.) On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to the screening order 23 and notified the Court that he wished to stand on the complaint. (Doc. 8 at 1.) 24 On March 7, 2022, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations and 25 recommended dismissal. (Doc. 9.) The magistrate judge determined “there are no factual 26 allegations in the complaint that identify the basis of the claim and Plaintiff’s references to federal 27 statutes, without more, are not sufficient.” (Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge found it also was 28 “impossible to determine what Plaintiff is alleging has occurred, or how the defendants are 1 | alleged to be responsible.” (/d. at 5.) Further, the magistrate judge noted that “Plaintiff was 2 | provided with applicable legal standards, an explanation why his complaint failed to state a claim, 3 | and leave to file an amended complaint, but Plaintiff chose to stand on his complaint.” (/d.) 4 | Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim. (/d.) 5 The Findings and Recommendations contained notice that any objections were due within 6 | 21 days. (Doc. 9 at 5.) On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a statement reiterating his intention to 7 | “stand on [his] complaint.” (Doc. 10 at 1.) In addition, Plaintiff requested an “emergency 8 | protective order” based on the same allegations made therein. (See id. at 1-3.) 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 10 | United Sch, Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), the Court conducted a de novo review of the 11 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Plaintiff's most recent filing, the Court 12 | finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 13 | Furthermore, the Court denies Plaintiffs “request for emergency protective order” because he did 14 | not state a cognizable claim for relief in his complaint and, consequently, cannot meet his burden 15 | to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 16 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (To obtain injunctive relief, the moving party must show “that he is likely 17 || to succeed on the merits.”). 18 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued March 7, 2022 (Doc. 9) are 20 ADOPTED in full. 21 2. Plaintiffs “request for emergency protective order” (Doc. 10) is DENIED. 22 3. This action is DISMISSED due to Plaintiff's failure to state a claim; and 23 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 4, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28