Roach v. Snook et al

Filing 8

Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 4 is DENIED. Signed on 4/11/2014 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION
THOMAS ROACH,
1:14-cv-00583-CL
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.

JOHN SNOOK; NORTHWEST TRUSTEE
SERVICES, INC.; CITIMORTGAGE,
Defendants.

PANNER, District Judge:

'This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

(#4).

Plaintiff, proceeding

pro se, seeks to enjoin the eviction order apparently issued by
the Josephine County Circuit Court.

Because. of the prohibitions

on enjoining ongoing state proceedings and because Plaintiff has
not shown a likelihood of success ori the merits of this case, I
DENY the motion.
The standard for a temporary restraining order (TRO)

is

essentially identical to the standard for a preliminary
injunction.
1 - ORDER

See Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D.

Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832,

839, n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001); see

also Sam v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 3:13-cv-1521-MO, 2013 WL
6 8 1 7 8 8 8 ( D . 0 r . Dec . 2 3 , 2 0 13 ) .
"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that
'---

the balance of equities tips in his favor,
is in the public interest."
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20

and that an injunction

Winter v. Natural Resouices Defense
(2008).

Further, a TRO may only be issued without notice to the
adverse party if the moving party shows "specific facts in an
affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition[,]" and "the
movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give
notice and the reasons why it should not be required."

Fed. R.

Civ. P. 65 (b) (1).
As a final matter, the court may issue a temporary
restraining order "only if the movant

g~ves

security in an amount

that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages
sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or
restrain~d."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c).

In this case, it appears that Plaintiff is facing eviction as
part of a Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED) proceeding initiated
in Josephine County Circuit Court.

Under the Anti-Injunction Act,

a federal court may not stay proceedings in state courts "except
as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or wheie
2 - ORDE'R

necess~ry

in

aid .of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its
judgment."

28 U.S.C. § 2283.

The Anti-Injunction Act serves as

an absolute bar to feder'al injunctions of state court proceedings
except within.the three narrowly defined exceptions laid out by
the Act itself.
(1977).

-

Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623,

630

The Court carinot place the facts of this case within any

of the narrow exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act.
The Court acknowledges that eviction is a serious and
potentially irreparable har·m.

However, Plaintiff appears to seek

to reverse the foreclosure of the property at issue and the sale
of the property to a private party.

Although the allegations put

forward by Plaintiff are not entirely clear, post-sale challenges
to completed foreclosure proceedings are generally barred.
Mikityuk v. Northwest Trustee Serv., Inc.,
Or. 2013).

Accordingly, the Court

canno~

See

952 F. Supp. 2d 958

(D.

conclude that Plaintiff

has shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

On balance, the

Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the
issuance of a TRO.
Conclusion

Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary

Restr~ining

DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

/1

day of April, 2014.

~~~

OWEN M. PANNER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
3_ - ORDER

Order (#4) is