From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Birk v. Royal Crown Bancorp, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jun 10, 2015
2:15-cv-00446-KJM-CMK (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2015)

Opinion


CAROLINE BIRK, Plaintiffs, v. ROYAL CROWN BANCORP, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-00446-KJM-CMK United States District Court, E.D. California. June 10, 2015

          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.


Summaries of

Birk v. Royal Crown Bancorp, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jun 10, 2015
2:15-cv-00446-KJM-CMK (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2015)
Case details for

Birk v. Royal Crown Bancorp, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CAROLINE BIRK, Plaintiffs, v. ROYAL CROWN BANCORP, INC., et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jun 10, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-00446-KJM-CMK (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2015)