(PC) Zinman v. Llamas ( 2024 )

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: 24-cv-0549 JLT BAM (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ) ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 14 P. LLAMAS, et al., ) ) (Docs. 8, 11, 13) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Justin Marcus Zinman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, in which 18 he seeks to hold the defendants liable for retaliation for speech and religion, violation of his due 19 process rights, and cruel and unusual punishment. (See Doc. 7 at 2.) Plaintiff seeks a temporary 20 restraining order and preliminary injunction. (Doc. 8.) He requests the Court: (1) enjoin “the 21 defendants, and all employees/persons acting in concert and participation with them,” to amend 22 unidentified patterns or practices that Plaintiff believes contributed to the alleged violations of his 23 constitutional rights and/or encourage retaliation against Plaintiff; (2) direct the defendants to amend a 24 policy that “orders or encourages inmates to refer to their assigned cells as ‘homes’ or ‘houses’… [or] 25 create a system that grants inmates “privacy rights to their cells as personal property/homes”; and (3) 26 order an immediate hearing for Plaintiff to be transferred to federal custody. (Id. at 1-2.) 27 The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff did not “show[] that he will suffer irreparable harm 28 the absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in the 1 || public interest.” (Doc. 13 at 4.) In addition, the magistrate judge found Plaintiffs requested relief 2 || was not related to “the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.” (/d.) For example, the 3 || magistrate judge observed: “Plaintiff complains of retaliation and his disagreement with inmates 4 || calling their assigned cells ‘homes,’ but the complaint raises allegations regarding retaliation in 5 || response to Plaintiff's refusal of a work assignment based on religious grounds and requests joinder c 6 || this case with Plaintiff's pending habeas action.” (/d. at 4-5.) Given the lack of a relationship 7 || between the claims alleged and the requested relief, the magistrate judge found “the Court lacks 8 || authority to grant the relief requested.” (Ud. at 5.) The magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff faile 9 || to meet the requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks, and recommended the requests be denied. 10 || Ud. at 4-5.) 11 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 12 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 13 at 6.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 13 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘rights to challenge the magistrate 14 ||judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (/d., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 15 || Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 16 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 17 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 18 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 13, 2024 (Doc. 13) are ADOPTEL 20 in full. 21 2. Plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 22 (Docs. 8 and 11) are DENIED. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2° || Dated: _ September 4, 2024 Charis [Tourn 26 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28