Cunningham v. Singer et al

Filing 49

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 47 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 48 Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 3:14-cv-03250-CRB

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM,

v.

14

KEVIN SINGER, ET AL.,

15

Defendants.

/

16
17

Plaintiff Archibald Cunningham seeks the immediate issuance of a temporary

18

restraining order preventing Defendants from enforcing any of three writs of possession

19

issued by the state court. See Mot. TRO (dkt. 48). At least two previous scheduled evictions

20

were stayed pending Cunningham’s filing of a Claim of Right to Possession, which was

21

denied by San Francisco County Superior Court on October 29, 2014. See Mot. TRO Ex. A.

22

According to Cunningham, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department has therefore scheduled

23

the next eviction date as soon as November 5, 2014. In addition to the instant motion,

24

currently pending before this Court for future hearings are Cunningham’s motion for a

25

preliminary injunction (dkt. 47) and motion for leave to file a second amended complaint

26

(dkt. 46), as well as Defendants’ motion to dismiss (dkt. 29) and motion to declare

27

Cunningham a vexatious litigant (dkt. 23).

28

The underlying dispute stems from Cunningham’s breaches of a Tenancy in

1

Common Agreement he had with defendants Michael Coombs and Tamara Woods, which

2

resulted in a state court arbitration judgment against Cunningham. See RJN (dkt. 31) Ex. 9,

3

10, 13. After repeated unsuccessful attacks on the judgment and appeals thereof, and having

4

been declared a vexatious litigant in the state courts, Cunningham has filed multiple federal

5

actions collaterally attacking the state court judgments and naming various state court judges

6

and justices as defendants. See RJN Ex. 5, 6, 17, 18.

7

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is well established: the party
seeking relief must demonstrate that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to

9

suffer irreparable harm absent relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

requested relief is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555

11

U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “[I]njunctive relieve [is] an extraordinary remedy that may only be

12

awarded upon a clear showing that the [movant] is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22.

13

Here, Cunningham has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits

14

because, among other reasons, he is seeking to relitigate issues that have already been

15

decided in state court. This court is bound to give full faith and credit to the judgments of the

16

state courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, and is forbidden from taking an appeal from state court. See

17

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

18

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Moreover, judges enjoy absolute immunity unless very

19

narrow exceptions, not relevant here, are met. See Ashelman v. Pop, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-

20

76 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Accordingly, Cunningham has not met his burden of

21

establishing his entitlement to the requested “extraordinary relief,” and the Court DENIES

22

his motion for a temporary restraining order.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: November 4, 2014
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2