ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, District Judge.

Moses Nelson filed suit against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Bank of America, N.A.; American Brokers Conduit; U.S. Bank National Association; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; John Does 1 through 100; and Jane Roes 1 through 100 ("Defendants") alleging "unlawful fraudulent interstate enterprise" under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

On February 20, 2019, Moses filed a motion for preliminary injunction and motion for temporary restraining order, requesting that I "issue an injunction enjoining the Defendant(s)...from any further attempts to enforce a fraudulently procured judgment from [a] State Court action that was fraudulently procured using Mortgage contracts that are [v]oid on [their] face...." See Motion for Order to Show Cause, Doc. No. 19, at 11.

Moses's request for injunctive relief is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, which provides that "[a] court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The District of Connecticut has held that "[u]nless one of the enumerated exceptions applies, the court may not enjoin [a] state court foreclosure action." Rhodes v. Advanced Prop. Mgmt. Inc., 2011 WL 3204597, at *1 (D. Conn. July 26, 2011).

Because none of the enumerated exceptions apply here, Moses's request is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, and his motion for preliminary injunction/motion for temporary restraining order is denied.

So ordered.