Birk v. Royal Crown Bancorp, Inc., et al.

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/10/2015 DENYING 3 Motion for TRO. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CAROLINE BIRK,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-00446-KJM-CMK

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

ROYAL CROWN BANCORP, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On June 10, 2015, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a temporary

19

restraining order (TRO). (ECF No. 3.) It appears plaintiff seeks an order staying a writ of

20

possession issued by a state court that becomes effective on June 11, 2015. (Id. at 2.) She seeks a

21

stay, so that she can pursue her state law claims “in the state unlawful detainer action.” (Id. at 9.)

22

“Under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, however, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the

23

propriety of state court rulings, including a writ of possession rendered during the course of a

24

state court unlawful detainer proceeding.” Tucker v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage Ass’n, No. 13-01874,

25

2013 WL 5159730, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2013) (collecting cases); see also Drawsand v. F.F.

26

Properties, L.L.P., 866 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“To the extent that [the

27

plaintiff] is attempting to challenge the adverse ruling in the [unlawful detainer] action, such

28

claim is barred under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.”).
1

1

Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED: June 10, 2015.

4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2