BAILEY v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
ORDER denying 4 Motion for TRO; denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by Judge C. Ashley Royal on 1/31/13 (lap) ***
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
LINDA M. BAILEY,
No. 3:13‐CV‐00001 (CAR)
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST
COMPANY AMERICAS as
TRUSTEE for RALI 2005 QA12,
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Currently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Linda M. Bailey’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 3] and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. 4].
Although these Motions were filed separately, both essentially request that the Court
enjoin Defendant Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee for RALI 2005
QA12 from enforcing the Writ of Possession granted in favor of Defendant on
December 18, 2012. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.
The instant action is one in a long line of judicial proceedings initiated by
Plaintiff in an attempt to maintain possession of 701 Mohansic Avenue, Loganville,
Georgia 30052 (the “Property”). On July 7, 2009, after Plaintiff defaulted on the terms of
her mortgage loan and security deed, Defendant obtained title to the Property following
a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. Plaintiff did not vacate the property, and Defendant
initiated a dispossessory proceeding against Plaintiff and all other residents of the
Property in the Magistrate Court of Walton County on April 23, 2010. Plaintiff has
contested Defendant’s title to the Property through multiple appeals, motions for
reconsideration, a suit in the Northern District, and a separate bankruptcy filing. To
date, Plaintiff has remained on the property mortgage‐free for more than four years.
Now, Plaintiff hopes to forestall her imminent eviction once again by filing suit in this
Court and seeking injunctive relief.
The Court notes that because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes
her Motions for injunctive relief more liberally than those drafted by a formally‐trained
lawyer.1 However, as Defendant points out in its response, this Court is barred from
granting Plaintiff’s requests for relief by the federal Anti‐Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. §
2283. Injunctive relief claims against state court eviction proceedings, including
preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, are barred by the Anti‐
Injunction Act unless they fall within one of three exceptions: (1) the injunction is
expressly authorized by an Act of Congress; (2) the injunction is “necessary in aid of
[the court’s] jurisdiction”; or (3) the injunction is necessary “to protect and effectuate
Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990).
[the court’s] judgment.”2 This is an “absolute prohibition against enjoining State Court
proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of the three specifically defined
exceptions.”3 None of the three exceptions apply here, and therefore this Court cannot
enjoin the state court form enforcing any judgment in an action for eviction.4
Moreover, Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief must be denied because
Plaintiff fails to give or even offer the security required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(c). Specifically, Rule 65(c) states that “[t]he court may issue a preliminary
injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an
amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any
party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”5 Plaintiff does not deny
that she has failed to make payments in accordance with the loan she signed and has
made no offer to tender the required security.6
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
[Doc. 3] and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order  are DENIED.
28 U.S.C. § 2283.
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970).
4 See, e.g., Boross v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., No. 4:10‐CV‐144, 2011 WL 2945819 (S.D. Ga. July 21, 2011) (holding
Anti‐Injunction Act barred plaintiff’s request to enjoin eviction proceedings); Farrell v. Poythress, No. 1:10‐
CV‐1309, 2010 WL 2411502, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 11, 2010) (Anti‐Injunction Act barred plaintiff’s request to
enjoin enforcement of eviction action).
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) (emphasis supplied).
6 See Jackman v. Hasty, No 1:10‐SC‐2485, 2011 WL 854878, at *1 (N.D. Ga. March 8, 2011) (temporary
restraining order denied where plaintiff failed to offer the security required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c)).
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of January, 2013.
S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT