Smith v. Newsome

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANAEL SMITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00592-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 v. STAY LOWER COURT ORDERS 14 GAVIN NEWSOME, et al., (Doc. 6) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Nathanael Smith is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, 18 alleging violations of his rights under the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and 19 Fourteenth Amendments and other federal statutes. (See Doc. 7 at 1-12.) On March 21, 2025, the 20 Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that it failed to comply with Federal 21 Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (Doc. 11.) The Court 22 further noted that it did not have jurisdiction to review orders issued in state court proceedings. 23 (Id.) The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. 24 (Id.) Following his original complaint, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Stay Lower Court 25 Orders, in which he requests the Court stay the enforcement of orders issued by Tuolumne 26 County Superior Court pending resolution of the instant action. (Doc. 6.) 27 28 1 I. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 2 Plaintiff states that he seeks to prevent the enforcement of various orders issued in state 3 court. (Doc. 6 at 3-6.) Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 4 and argues that there is irreparable harm due to the ongoing enforcement of the state court’s 5 orders as it has affected his emotional wellbeing and physical health, that he is likely to succeed 6 on the merits given the alleged violations of the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 7 Amendments to the Constitution, that the balance of equities tips in his favor as harm from 8 enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional orders outweighs harms to Defendants, and that the 9 public interest favors granting a stay to prevent further alleged constitutional violations. (Id. at 10 2-3.) 11 A. Legal Standard 12 Plaintiff states that he brings this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62, 13 which permits stays of proceedings to enforce judgments in federal actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 62. However, Plaintiff requests the Court stay orders issued in California state court proceedings. 15 Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s request as one for a preliminary injunction. 16 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 17 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 18 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 19 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 20 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction 21 may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation 22 omitted). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 23 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 24 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 25 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 26 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 27 power to hear the matter in question. Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 471. 28 /// 1 B. Discussion 2 Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the injunctive relief that he seeks. The Court 3 screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 4 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 5 malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 6 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Upon 7 screening, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim and 8 that the Court does not have jurisdiction to review orders issued in state court proceedings. (Doc. 9 11.) As the Court explained there, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court 10 does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a state court. 11 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84 (2005); see also Dist. of 12 Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 13 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). 14 Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended complaint that states a cognizable claim or clarifies 15 how the Court would have subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the Court cannot find that 16 Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, no Defendant has been 17 ordered served, and no Defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks 18 personal jurisdiction over any defendants, and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take, or 19 forbid them from taking, any action. Moreover, the instant motion seeks to stay orders from 20 California state court decisions, over which the Court has no jurisdiction. Further, while Plaintiff 21 argues that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of 22 equities tip in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest, Plaintiff does not provide 23 support for these elements beyond conclusory statements. (See Doc. 6 at 2-3.) 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 II. Conclusion and Recommendation 2 Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay 3 Lower Court Orders, construed as a request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 6) be DENIED. 4 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 6 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 7 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 8 Findings and Recommendation.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages or 9 include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if already in 10 the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be 11 considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 12 in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. 13 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 14 Cir. 1991)). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

17 Dated: March 24, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28