Tidwell v. Carrington Real Estate Services (US), LLC, C 17-00437 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170316984
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 18), to the extent comprehensible, is based on an underlying unlawful detainer action and writs issued by the state court on November 8, 2011 (although plaintiff states "it is overwhelmingly evident the Lord Jesus Christ has intervened thereby causing the November 8, 2011 Writ to expire"); August 22, 2016; and March 10, 20
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 18), to the extent comprehensible, is based on an underlying unlawful detainer action and writs issued by the state court on November 8, 2011 (although plaintiff states "it is overwhelmingly evident the Lord Jesus Christ has intervened thereby causing the November 8, 2011 Writ to expire"); August 22, 2016; and March 10, 201..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 18), to the extent comprehensible, is based on an underlying unlawful detainer action and writs issued by the state court on November 8, 2011 (although plaintiff states "it is overwhelmingly evident the Lord Jesus Christ has intervened thereby causing the November 8, 2011 Writ to expire"); August 22, 2016; and March 10, 2017 (see id. at 2, 4, 6, 10). The application is DENIED. Plaintiff currently resides in the property at issue (id. at 9). Nothing that allegedly happened in the recent past indicates the underlying unlawful detainer action threatens imminent and immediate eviction (see, e.g., id. at 3-4). Even if it did, due process has been satisfied by the due process supplied by the state court. To the extent that plaintiff has a grievance with a writ issued by the state court or an ongoing unlawful detainer action against him, he should direct those grievances to the state court, not federal court.
If plaintiff proposes to pursue this federal action, then this denial of a temporary restraining order is without prejudice to a motion, properly made and served, for a preliminary injunction directed at the proper defendants. So advising, this order does not suggest that such a motion could be brought in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
