Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ruben Miguel Zepeda, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, sued Officer Gregory Roton and other defendants in the Eastern District of California. In a filing docketed as ECF No. 41, he combined several requests, including a motion to take Officer Amir Aziz out of the case altogether and a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Turlock Police Department to stop what he described as harassment through bogus cases and charges. The magistrate judge addressed Plaintiff's other requests separately by minute order on October 26, 2026.
The procedural posture mattered to the injunction request. On May 12, 2026, the court issued findings and recommendations that the First Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. On September 23, 2026, the district judge adopted them and dismissed that pleading with leave to amend within 30 days. The October 27 order states that there is presently no operative complaint. It was issued by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636, and it is unpublished.
The Court’s Holding
The order does two different things. First, it construes the request regarding Officer Aziz as a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), because no defendant had filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. That part is an order, not a recommendation. The ordering paragraph dismisses the action without prejudice as to Officer A. Aziz only and vacates all previously set deadlines and hearings as to him. One earlier sentence in the text says the dismissal is with prejudice, which conflicts with the ordering paragraph and the docket entry; this article follows those two, which both say without prejudice. The claims against the other defendants are not affected.
Second, the magistrate judge recommends that the preliminary injunction motion be denied, submitting it on the record under Local Rule 230(g). The court recites the Winter standard: an extraordinary remedy that requires a clear showing of likely success, likely irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and consistency with the public interest. It then gives two reasons for denial. The motion is procedurally deficient. Plaintiff submitted no brief on the relevant legal issues, no supporting affidavits, and no proposed order, all of which Local Rule 231(d)(2) requires, and denial for noncompliance with local rules is within the court's discretion. Separately, because the First Amended Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, there is no operative complaint, so Plaintiff cannot show he is likely to succeed on the merits. The order does not analyze the remaining Winter factors.
The recommendation is not final. Any party may file objections within 14 days after being served, and a reply is due within 14 days after service of the objections. Failure to object within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal is available before any defendant answers or moves for summary judgment, and the court treated a pro se inmate's request to remove one officer as such a notice.
- The order's text is inconsistent about prejudice, but its ordering paragraph and the docket entry both state dismissal without prejudice as to Officer Aziz only.
- Omitting the brief, affidavits, and proposed order required by Local Rule 231(d)(2) can by itself justify denying a preliminary injunction motion, including one filed by a pro se litigant.
- A plaintiff whose complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend, and who has no operative pleading, will struggle to show likely success on the merits.
- The injunction ruling is only a recommendation to the district judge, and objections are due within 14 days of service.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished magistrate judge's recommendation with no precedential weight. It is useful mainly as an illustration of how Eastern District of California judges apply the local-rule requirements for injunction motions and the Winter standard to self-represented inmates. It also shows that an injunction motion filed while no complaint is operative faces a threshold obstacle independent of the motion's substance.
Much remains open. The district judge has not yet adopted or rejected the recommendation, and the order does not say whether Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Nothing in the order forecloses a later motion that complies with the local rules and rests on a live pleading. Because the Aziz dismissal is without prejudice per the ordering paragraph, it does not necessarily bar later claims against him.