Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. Reziapkine et al

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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING
AGENCY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIL REZIAPKINE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:24-cv-2862-DAD-JDP
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Doc. Nos. 70, 78)
All defendants in this action are proceeding pro se and the matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). On
August 24, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations
recommending that defendants’ motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. No. 70) be denied. (Doc. No. 78.) Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded
that defendants had failed to meet their burden of establishing their fair chance of success on the
merits of their due process claim and where therefore not entitled to the preliminary injunctive
relief they had requested. (Id. at 4–7.)
The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained
notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at
8.) On September 4, 2026, defendants filed objections of 51 pages in length to the findings and
Case 2:24-cv-02862-DAD-JDP Document 86 Filed 10/14/26 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
recommendations. (Doc. No. 82.) On September 22, 2026, plaintiff filed a response to
defendants’ objections. (Doc. No. 85.)
In their lengthy objections, which have been fully considered by the undersigned,
defendants: 1) conflate the aquatic invasive species inspection (AIS) seal regimen applicable to
vessels on the waters of Lake Tahoe with the regulatory tag that entitles its holder to launch a
vessel on that lake, the latter requirement which defendants have repeatedly chosen to ignore; and
(2) unpersuasively argue that they have been denied due process despite their refusal to heed or
respond to the many notifications provided to them. (Doc. No. 82.) Plaintiff points out both of
these deficiencies in its response. (Doc. No. 85.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 24, 2026 (Doc. No. 78) are
adopted in full;
2. Defendants’ motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. No. 70) is denied; and
3. This action is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings for all
further pretrial matters.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02862-DAD-JDP Document 86 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2