Laws v. Laws, et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/21/17 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order 22 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM J. LAWS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-00369-TLN-AC

v.

ORDER

CAROLYN LAWS,

15

Defendant.

16
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s “Motion for Temporary Injunction.”

17
18

(ECF No. 22.) In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court construes this as a motion for a

19

temporary restraining order (“TRO”). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is

20

DENIED.

21

I.

22
23
24
25

INTRODUCTION
On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint. (ECF No. 1.) He alleges as follows:
“I am the trustee for the Medora D. Laws Trust, filed in the
Superior Court in Solano County, FPR045231. The court, without
Due Process of Law ordered that the trustee be removed and that
the defendant become successor trustee and that the trustee’s
personal real estate be returned to the trust and sold.

26

(ECF No. 1 at 5.)

27

On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed an “Affidavit for Temporary Injunctive Relief.” (ECF

28

No. 13.) The Court construed this as a motion for a TRO. (ECF No. 18 at 1.) The Court
1

1

concluded the motion “fail[ed] both procedurally and substantively” and denied it without

2

prejudice. (ECF No. 18 at 2–3.)

3

On June 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff indicates that

4

Defendant Carolyn Laws has “filed a request for elisor in the . . . Superior Court on May 17, 2017

5

to have the property in question in this case returned to the trust to be sold.” (ECF No. 22 at 1.)

6

He further indicates that a hearing is scheduled in that case on June 26, 2017. (ECF No. 22 at 1.)

7

Plaintiff requests a TRO “enjoining and restraining the defendant from interfering with or

8

proceeding with any action in the Superior Court, as this case is pending in Federal Court.” (ECF

9

No. 22 at 2.)

10

II.

11

LEGAL STANDARD
The same legal standard applies to both preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining

12

orders. Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001),

13

overruled on other grounds, Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).

14

Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear

15

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citing Mazurek v.

16

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)).

17

III.

DISCUSSION

18

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin an ongoing state court proceeding, Defendant’s participation in it,

19

or both. (Compare ECF No. 22 at 84–85 with ECF No. 1 at 5; see also ECF No. 22 at 1–2.) The

20

practical effect is the same — “the requested relief . . . would effectively be staying the state court

21

proceeding.” Hernandez v. Winstar Propoerties, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04697-ODW-KS, 2016 WL

22

3869830, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2016). Consequently, this motion is subject to the Anti-

23

Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which provides: “[a] court of the United States may not grant

24

an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of

25

Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”

26

28 U.S.C. § 2283. Unless the sought-after injunction “falls within one of [the] three specifically

27

defined exceptions” the Anti-Injunction Act serves as an “absolute prohibition against enjoining

28

state court proceedings.” Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281,
2

1

286 (1970). “[E]xceptions to the Anti–Injunction Act must be construed narrowly and doubts as

2

to the propriety of a federal injunction against a state court proceeding should be resolved in favor

3

of permitting the state action to proceed.” Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987).

4

Plaintiff has made no effort to show any of these exceptions applies. Consequently, Plaintiff has

5

not made a “clear showing” that he is “entitled” to a TRO. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.

6
7
8
9

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF

No. 22) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated: June 21, 2017

12
13

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3