Opinion
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
On June 10, 2015, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). (ECF No. 3.) It appears plaintiff seeks an order staying a writ of possession issued by a state court that becomes effective on June 11, 2015. ( Id. at 2.) She seeks a stay, so that she can pursue her state law claims "in the state unlawful detainer action." ( Id. at 9.) "Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, however, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the propriety of state court rulings, including a writ of possession rendered during the course of a state court unlawful detainer proceeding." Tucker v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage Ass'n, No. 13-01874, 2013 WL 5159730, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2013) (collecting cases); see also Drawsand v. F.F. Properties, L.L.P., 866 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ("To the extent that [the plaintiff] is attempting to challenge the adverse ruling in the [unlawful detainer] action, such claim is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.").
Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff's motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.