Latronica v. Lynch et al
Filing
18
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 12 & 14 Plaintiff's Motions for Arrest Warrants and Injunctions be DENIED re 10 Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/28/2016. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
MELANIE C. LATRONICA,
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No. 1:16-cv-01352-LJO-SAB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ARREST
WARRANTS AND INJUNCTIONS
v.
15
MERRILL LYNCH, et al.,
16
Defendants.
(ECF No. 12, 14)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS
17
18
19
Plaintiff Melanie C. Latronica, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
20 on September 12, 2016.
21
I.
22
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
23
On September 26, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend.
24 (ECF No. 5.) On September 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint dated September 23, 2016, and
25 therefore, it was filed prior to Plaintiff receiving the Court’s order dismissing the complaint with
26 leave to amend.
(ECF No. 6.) On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice that she had
27 received the Court’s order dismissing her complaint and that she would be filing an amended
28 complaint. (ECF No. 8.) On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint and a
1
1 motion for an injunction. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.)
2
On November 7, 2016, the undersigned issued a findings and recommendations
3 recommending that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and
4 Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction be denied as moot. (ECF No. 11.) On that same date, the
5 findings and recommendations was served on Plaintiff.
6
On November 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for arrest warrants and injunctions. (ECF
7 No. 12.) Plaintiff set a hearing on the motion for December 14, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. before the
8 undersigned. On November 22, 2016, the Court vacated the December 14, 2016 hearing and
9 took the matter under submission. (ECF No. 17.)
10
On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document which the Court construed as a motion
11 for the undersigned to recuse himself. (ECF No. 15.) On November 22, 2016, the undersigned
12 denied Plaintiff’s motion for recusal. (ECF No. 16.)
13
On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Petition Motion: Writ of
14 Prohibition Mandamus.” (ECF No. 14.) The Court construes this motion as another motion for
15 arrest warrants and injunctions.
16
For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motions for arrest
17 warrants and injunctions (ECF Nos. 12, 14) be denied.
18
II.
19
LEGAL STANDARD
20
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter
21 v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A
22 court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the plaintiff establishes four elements: (1)
23 likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of suffering irreparable harm absent a
24 preliminary injunction; (3) the balance of equities tips in plaintiff’s favor; and (4) injunctive
25 relief is in the public interest.” Leigh v. Salazar, 677 F.3d 892, 896 (2012); Alliance for Wild
26 Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010). An injunction may only be awarded
27 upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 376 (citation
28 omitted) (emphasis added).
2
1
III.
2
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff states in her November 7, 2016 motion for arrest warrants and injunctions that
3
4 she is seeking arrest warrants against numerous people, including a number of judges. (ECF No.
5 12 at 3-4.)1 It appears that Plaintiff alleges that defendants are conducting ongoing torture and
6 are filing unlawful detainer cases and evictions. Plaintiff’s November 7, 2016 filing contains a
7 number of delusional, fanciful, and incomprehensible statements similar to the statements she
8 made in her first amended complaint and other filings. For example, Plaintiff states, “human
9 trafficking against Miss Latronica has been going on since she was stolen as a baby and she’s
10 NOT-IN-HER-BODY ongoing torture and gross life deprivation. As of this day; she’s still
11 being tortured in UX bodies.” (ECF No. 12 at 6 (emphasis in the original).)
In Plaintiff’s November 17, 2016 motion for arrest warrants and injunctions, Plaintiff
12
13 asks the Court to stop the named people from torturing Plaintiff. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff states
14 that she wants the Court to “dismiss Robert Cole[’]s filing of a fraudulent unlawful detainer case
15 only, to please dismiss the summary judgment by means of a Tentative Ruling Announcement
16 signed by John D Freeland and that these Respondents immediately be apprehended for
17 prosecution and that Plaintiff be restored back to her Cottage Home Unit for further Court
18 proceedings in Modesto and in Fresno.” (ECF No. 14 at 2.)
No Likelihood of Success on Plaintiff’s Claims
19
A.
20
In order to qualify for injunctive relief, Plaintiff must, at minimum, demonstrate a “fair
21 chance of success” that her claims will ultimately prevail on their merits. See, e.g., Johnson v.
22 Calif. State Bd. Of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). This means that Plaintiff
23 must demonstrate some likelihood of obtaining a favorable result in her case in chief. Original
24 Appalachian Artworks v. Topps Chewing Gum, 642 F. Supp. 1031, 1034 (N.D. Ga. 1986); A&M
25 Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1005, fn. 3 (9th Cir. 2001). No matter how severe
26 or irreparable the injury asserted, an injunction should never issue if the moving party’s claims
27
28
1
All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the
CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.
3
1 are so legally untenable that there is virtually no chance of prevailing on the merits. State of
2 Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 180 (5th Cir. 1975).
3
The implausibility of the claims asserted by Plaintiff makes it impossible for this Court to
4 conclude there is any likelihood she will ultimately prevail on the merits. The undersigned
5 recommended that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend on
6 November 7, 2016. (ECF No. 11.) Objections to the findings and recommendations are due by
7 December 12, 2016. If the District Judge adopts the undersigned’s findings and
8 recommendations, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend
9 and the action will be closed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions for arrest warrants and injunctions
10 should be denied. Below, the Court sets forth several additional reasons why the Court cannot
11 issue Plaintiff’s requested arrest warrants and injunctions.
12
B.
Court Cannot Initiate a Criminal Prosecution
13
The United States Constitution delegates powers of the Federal Government into three
14 defined categories: the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch.
15 Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 721 (1986). It is the Executive Branch of the United States that
16 has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case. United
17 States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974). As the Judicial Branch, this Court does not have the
18 power to criminally prosecute any individual or issue an order for the arrest of the people
19 Plaintiff requests.
20
C.
Federal Court Cannot Direct State Court to Issue Arrest Warrants
21
Similarly, under our federal system of government the allocation of powers sets the
22 responsibilities of the states and the federal government. Bond v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2355,
23 2364 (2011).
This allocation of powers “preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual
24 sovereignty of the States.” Id. “The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that
25 States function as political entities in their own right.” Id. Plaintiff cites a number of sections of
26 the California Penal Code in her motions for arrest warrants and injunctions. Accordingly, to the
27 extent that Plaintiff is asking the federal court to direct the state court to issue arrest warrants, the
28 federal court does not have the authority to order the state court judges to issue arrest warrants.
4
1
D.
Unlawful Detainer Action is Within Province of State Courts
2
Plaintiff requests the Court dismiss Robert Cole’s unlawful detainer action. Based on
3 Plaintiff’s filing, it appears that there is a pending or recently completed action for unlawful
4 detainer against her based on California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. Unlawful
5 detainer actions are strictly within the province of the state courts. See PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n v.
6 Ahluwalia, No. C 15-01264 WHA, 2015 WL 3866892, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015)
7 (collecting cases). Therefore, this Court cannot litigate or interfere with the unlawful detainer
8 action against Plaintiff.
9
IV.
10
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for
11
12 arrest warrants and injunctions (ECF Nos. 12, 14) be DENIED.
This findings and recommendation is submitted to the district judge assigned to this
13
14 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen
15 (14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings
16 and recommendation with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
17 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”
The district judge will review the
18 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
19 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the
20 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
21 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 Dated:
November 28, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?