Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01320/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01320-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN MARCUS ZINMAN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

R. COGBURN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01320 JLT CDB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 

COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE

(Doc. 8)

Justin Marcus Zinman seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights. 

(See generally Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge observed that the incident forming the basis of 

Plaintiff’s claims occurred on September 27, 2024, and ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why 

the action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 3.) 

After receiving Plaintiff’s response, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies, and Plaintiff’s “belief that he faced an express threat of imminent 

serious injury or death” did not provide and exception from the exhaustion requirement.” (Doc. 8 

at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed “without prejudice 

to Plaintiff’s refiling once his claims are exhausted.” (Id.; see also id. at 4.)

Plaintiff timely filed a response to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 9.) 

Although entitled “objection,” Plaintiff indicates that he “does not want this action to be 

obfuscated by an issue like exhaustion ... and it would be probably advantageous for the Plaintiff 

Case 1:24-cv-01320-JLT-CDB Document 10 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

to refile[.]” (Id. at 1). He also indicates that he “concede[s] that refiling once administrative 

procedures are exhausted would outweigh the benefits of moving forward with this Complaint.” 

(Id.). Plaintiff expresses in his objections an intention to include a claim in a new action pursuant 

to “Monell.” (Id. at 1-3.)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Because the 

Monell issue that Plaintiff forecasts is not before the Court at this time, the Court declines to offer 

an advisory opinion concerning the exhaustion requirements or merits of such a claim. Thus, the 

Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 3, 2024 (Doc. 8), are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate pending motions and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-01320-JLT-CDB Document 10 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2