Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00210/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00210-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS J. FORBES,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv210-MMA (JMA)

vs. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REGAIN POSSESSION

OF REAL PROPERTY

[Doc. No. 25]

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Thomas J. Forbes, proceeding pro se, had filed a First Amended Complaint against

Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association, et al. See Doc. No. 4. Plaintiff alleges various

causes of action arising out of events related to the foreclosure sale of real property located in

Riverside County, California, and his subsequent eviction from the property. This matter is

currently before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Undertaken to Regain Possession of Real

Property Located at 1883 Redfield Road, Riverside California 92507 Pending the Final Execution of

the Default, Judgment, and Writ of Execution for Possession of Said Property.” See Doc. No. 25. 

Plaintiff requests that the Court return title in the property to his name while this litigation is

pending. 

Plaintiff essentially seeks injunctive relief. To demonstrate entitlement to such relief,

Plaintiff must show that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim(s); (2) he is likely to

suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and

- 1 - 12cv210

Case 3:12-cv-00210-MMA-JMA Document 30 Filed 04/25/12 Page 1 of 2
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

(4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 

(2008); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). A

preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing

that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Plaintiff fails to satisfy any of

these elements. 

Furthermore, according to Plaintiff, “[a]s of February 27,2012 the property located at 1883

Redfield Road, Riverside California 92507 has become vacant due to a lockout of the subject

property performed by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department upon the Plaintiff and is vacant

and not inhabited by any party.” See Motion, 3. The Court infers based on Plaintiff’s representation

that a state court judgment was issued against Plaintiff, as well as writ of possession requiring him to

vacate the real property. This Court has no jurisdiction to provide appellate review of the state court

action, according to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041-1042 (9th

Cir.2005) (“Typically, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal courts from exercising subject

matter jurisdiction over a proceeding in which a party losing in state court seeks what in substance

would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing

party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” (internal quotation

marks omitted)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156, 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2003) (Rooker prohibits

de facto appeals of the state court decisions in federal court and Feldman prohibits a federal district

court from considering any issue that “inextricably intertwined”); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 292-293 (2005) (The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars

“cases brought by state court losers complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments

rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and

rejection of those judgments”). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 25, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv210

Case 3:12-cv-00210-MMA-JMA Document 30 Filed 04/25/12 Page 2 of 2