Reed v. U.S. Bank National Association et al

Filing 10

ORDER: Pro se Plaintiff Patricia Reed's Emergency Motion for a TRO or Injunction to Stop Eviction (Doc. # 9 ) is DENIED insofar as it seeks a temporary restraining order. To the extent the Motion requests a preliminary injunction, it is referred to the Honorable Anthony E. Porcelli, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/10/2017. (DMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PATRICIA REED,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-1051-T-33AEP

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
pro se Plaintiff Patricia Reed’s Emergency Motion for a TRO
or Injunction to Stop Eviction (Doc. # 9), filed on May 10,
2017. Defendants U.S. Bank National Association, Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems,
Inc. (MERS), American Brokers Conduit, and “Does 1 through 10
inclusive” have not yet been served, nor made an appearance.
For the reasons below, the Motion is denied insofar as it
requests a temporary restraining order.
Discussion
On

May

5,

2017,

Reed

filed

her

Complaint

against

Defendants seeking cancellation and expungement of Reed’s

1

mortgage recorded with the Sarasota County Recorder’s Office
and a declaration that the mortgage is voidable. (Doc. # 1).
Thereafter,
emergency

Reed

filed

temporary

the

pending

restraining

order

Motion
or

seeking

an

injunction

to

prevent eviction from her home. (Doc. # 9). The Motion reads:
Comes
now,
Patricia
Reed,
Debtor
the
undersigned acting pro se, proceeding to make the
above captioned Emergency Motion, and hereby shows
cause;
1. Plaintiff has been served with a Writ of
Possession regarding the Subject Property of the
above styled Case EXHIBIT 1.
2. Excerpted Copy of the Docket for Case Number:
2008 CA 015437 NC, In the Circuit Court of the 12th
Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Sarasota
County. EXHIBIT 2.
(Id. at 1). The Motion ends with excerpts from three sections
of the Florida Statutes regarding the transfer of negotiable
instruments. (Id. at 2).
A Court may issue a temporary restraining order if the
movant establishes: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered
if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury
outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant;
and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public
interest.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d
1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). Reed has made no attempt to

2

demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits
of her Complaint. See Id. at 1226 (“Controlling precedent is
clear that injunctive relief may not be granted unless the
plaintiff establishes the substantial likelihood of success
criterion.”).

Nor

has

she

alleged

she

will

suffer

an

irreparable injury if the Motion is denied.
Furthermore,

“[u]nder

the

Anti–Injunction

Act,

a

district court may not enjoin state proceedings ‘except as
expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary
in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its
judgments.’” Arthur v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 569 Fed.
Appx. 669, 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2283)).
“The . . . ‘necessary in aid of its jurisdiction’ exception[]
applies in two narrow circumstances: (1) the federal court
gains jurisdiction over res in an in rem proceeding before a
party brings a subsequent state court action; or (2) the
federal court is presented with a similar context,” e.g., the
need to protect an earlier-issued injunction. Id. (citing
Burr & Forman v. Blair, 470 F.3d 1019, 1028-29 (11th Cir.
2006)). “[T]he third exception, known as the “relitigation
exception,” . . . is applicable where subsequent state law
claims ‘would be precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.’
. . . In addition to the existence of a federal judgment,
3

‘the party seeking the injunction must make a strong and
unequivocal

showing

of

relitigation.’”

Id.

at

678-79

(citations omitted).
Here, Reed has failed to demonstrate any of the three
exceptions apply. The Motion does not point to any act of
Congress that would allow for injunctive relief. Id. (finding
first exception not met where party seeking injunction failed
to cite an act of Congress allowing for injunctive relief).
In addition, the Court is not proceeding in rem as it has not
obtained jurisdiction over res. Furthermore, Reed has not
pointed to any previously-issued federal injunction that must
be protected against her eviction. Finally, Reed has not shown
the existence of a prior federal judgment in her favor. Id.
at 678-79 (finding third exception not met where party seeking
injunction failed to point to a federal judgment issued in
its

favor).

Accordingly,

Reed’s

request

for

a

temporary

restraining order is denied. See Dyer v. The Bank of N.Y.
Mellon, No. 5:17-cv-130-Oc-30PRL, 2017 WL 1165552, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2017)(denying plaintiff’s request for an
injunction

to

prevent

foreclosure

sale

under

the

Anti-

Injunction Act); Littlejohn v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 3:15cv-194-J-34JRK, 2015 WL 789131, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 24,
2015)(same).
4

To

the

injunction,

extent
it

is

the

Motion

referred

to

requests
the

a

Honorable

preliminary
Anthony

E.

Porcelli, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and
recommendation.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Pro se Plaintiff Patricia Reed’s Emergency Motion for a
TRO or Injunction to Stop Eviction (Doc. # 9) is DENIED
insofar as it seeks a temporary restraining order.

(2)

To

the

extent

the

Motion

requests

a

preliminary

injunction, it is referred to the Honorable Anthony E.
Porcelli, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report
and recommendation.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
10th day of May, 2017.

5