Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02308/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02308-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL EDWARD GILBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLEAR RECON CORP, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-02308-DC-CKD (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Doc. Nos. 35, 39)

Plaintiff Paul Edward Gilbert is proceeding pro se in this civil action. This matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302.

On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in the 

form of an “immediate stay of eviction.” (Doc. No. 35.) On December 18, 2024, the undersigned 

referred Plaintiff’s motion to the assigned magistrate judge for the issuance of findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 37.)

On December 19, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be 

denied because “this court cannot enjoin the state court unlawful detainer matter [brought against 

Plaintiff] or eviction proceedings resulting from that state court judgment.” (Doc. No. 39 at 7.) 

The magistrate judge found that “[b]ased on the materials presented with the request for a 

Case 2:24-cv-02308-DC-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/10/25 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

temporary restraining order, a state court has already or will soon enter judgment in an unlawful 

detainer action involving plaintiff and the real property at issue.” (Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge 

further explained that “[u]nder well-settled principles, this court lacks ‘subject matter jurisdiction 

over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.’” (Id.) (quoting Reusser v. 

Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008)). The magistrate judge also emphasized 

that “[n]umerous district courts in California have found that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits a 

federal district court from issuing a temporary restraining order staying unlawful detainer 

proceedings in state court.” (Doc. No. 39 at 6) (quoting Gray v. Bakersfield Parks, LP, No. 1:16-

cv-01860-LJO-JLT, 2016 WL 7229112, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016) (citing cases)).

Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 

7.) On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 44.) On January 3, 2025, Defendant Citibank filed a response 

thereto. (Doc. No. 47.)

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that the findings and recommendations 

mischaracterize the relief he seeks in his motion. (Doc. No. 44 at 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff 

contends the magistrate judge incorrectly concluded that he is seeking to enjoin the state court 

unlawful detainer action Defendant Citibank brought against him. (Id.) But the magistrate judge 

accurately noted that “Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order does not specifically 

request an injunction of the state court unlawful detainer action, but the requested injunction [of 

an immediate stay of eviction] would operate to do exactly that.” (Doc. No. 39 at 5.) Notably, 

Plaintiff asserts that his “request is grounded in protecting federal constitutional claims,” (Doc. 

No. 44 at 3), but he does actually contest that the relief he seeks would operate as an injunction 

against the enforcement and execution of the state court’s judgment in the unlawful detainer 

action. Indeed, in his motion for a temporary restraining order, Plaintiff states that the relief he 

seeks is “an immediate stay of any eviction proceedings or related actions by [Defendant] 

Citibank.” (Doc. No. 35 at 3.) For these reasons, Plaintiff’s objection that the findings and 

recommendations mischaracterize the relief sought in his motion is not well taken.

Case 2:24-cv-02308-DC-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/10/25 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

Plaintiff also objects to the findings and recommendations on the ground that the 

magistrate judge overlooked the irreparable harm he faces if the eviction proceedings of the state 

court are not enjoined. (Doc. No. 44 at 3.) However, the magistrate judge correctly noted that 

Plaintiff did not file an affidavit in support of the existence of an irreparable injury. (Doc. No. 39 

at 4.) Moreover, even if unsubstantiated allegations of irreparable harm were overlooked in the 

findings and recommendations, that would not serve as a basis to reject the findings and 

recommendations. As thoroughly explained in the findings and recommendations, this court 

cannot grant the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks in his motion.

The court has also considered Plaintiff’s remaining objections, which likewise do not 

provide a basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 

objections and Defendant Citibank’s response, the court concludes that the findings and 

recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 19, 2024 (Doc. No. 39) 

are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 35) is denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2025 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-02308-DC-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/10/25 Page 3 of 3