Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00309/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00309-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cheryl Wells, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Hon. Jan E. Kearney, et al., 

Defendants. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 07-309 TUC FRZ (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, this case was referred to the

Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. Plaintiff

Cheryl Wells has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 8], and the Defendants

responded with their Objection to Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 9]. Plaintiff

did not filed a reply. For the reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that

the District Court, after independent review of the record, deny the Motion for Preliminary

Injunction. 

I. Background

On May 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed a notice of removal to this Court for a case pending

in the Pima County Superior Court that was captioned In the Matter of the Guardianship of

Elaine W. Wells, Case Number GC20070250. The Civil Docket Number is CV 07-205-TUC

and was assigned to District Judge Frank Zapata. By Order of Remand filed May 24, 2007,

Judge Zapata found that the removal of the case was improper because it did not allege a

proper basis for federal jurisdiction, it was removed by a non-party, and because the parties

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 10 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

had an adequate state forum. CV 07-205-TUC-FRZ, Docket No. 6. The case was ordered

dismissed and remanded to the Superior Court. Id. 

Subsequently, on June 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed her complaint in this case. The

complaint is based on the same issues raised in the previously filed notice of remand.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, who are judges and court commissioners in Pima

County, have conspired to prevent her from obtaining benefits from and control over the trust

settled by Plaintiff’s mother, Elaine Wells. The remedy Plaintiff seeks is a declaration that

a purported amendment of her mother’s trust is fraudulent and that Florida courts have

jurisdiction over the determination of rights under the trust.

On August 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Docket No. 8. In the motion, she seeks:

entry of a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants and

any public officials in Arizona acting under the supervision or

control of the defendants from conducting proceedings

involving plaintiff or her mother while this action is pending in

federal court.

Id., p. 1.

II. Discussion

The Anti-Injunction Act (the “Act”) prohibits a federal court from granting an

injunction to stay proceedings in a State Court except as expressly authorized by Congress.

28 U.S.C. § 2283. The Act applies to declaratory relief as well as injunctions if the

declaratory relief would have the same effect as an injunction. California v. Randtron, 284

F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir. 2002). “Any doubts regarding the appropriateness of an injunction

‘should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed.’” Amwest Mortgage

Corp. v. Grady, 925 F.2d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v.

Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 297 (1970)). 

Applying these authorities to the instant matter, it is clear that the requested injunction

is prohibited. First, the declaration Plaintiff seeks would have the same effect as an

injunction. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendants from conducting any

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 10 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

proceedings in state court while this action is pending in federal court. Second, although the

proposed injunction would be directed at the individual defendants rather than the state court

proceeding, the act nevertheless applies. Randtron, 284 F.3d at 975 (holding that the Act

applies even where the proposed injunction would be directed at a litigant instead of the state

court proceeding itself). Finally, Plaintiff has cited no authorization from Congress that

would allow the Court to issue an injunction under the circumstances of this case. 

III. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court,

after its independent review, issue an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

Injunction [Doc. No. 8]. 

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 07-309-TUCFRZ. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 11th day of October, 2007.

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 10 Filed 10/11/07 Page 3 of 3