Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00988/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00988-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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 Plaintiff sought a prior T.R.O. in this action, which was

denied since Plaintiff did not establish irreparable injury or a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff’s appeal of

the denial is pending in the Ninth Circuit.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD E. WILMSHURST, )

) CIV. S-04-0988 DFL KJM PS

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General, )

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; SUPERIOR )

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF )

CALAVERAS, )

) 

Defendants. )

)

On April 20, 2005, Pro Se Plaintiff filed a motion for a

temporary restraining order (“T.R.O.”) in which he seeks to prohibit

the Superior Court of California from conducting a criminal proceeding

against him in People v. Wilmshurst, No. F3229.1 Plaintiff argues

that his First Amended Complaint presents the need for the federal

court to stay the state criminal proceeding in People v. Wilmshurst,

contending if the state proceeding is not stayed, he will suffer

irreparable injury. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the state

Case 2:04-cv-00988-DFL -KJM Document 60 Filed 04/21/05 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

2 A courtroom deputy gave Plaintiff a copy of an order denying

his T.R.O. yesterday and informed him that the final order would be

filed today.

2

proceeding should be stayed because it violates 22 U.S.C. § 2778 and

26 U.S.C. § 5848.

The T.R.O. Plaintiff seeks is barred by the doctrine

enunciated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). This is evinced

by the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of Younger in

the Findings and Recommendations filed October 12, 2004, beginning at

page 4, line 9 and continuing through page 6, line 20, which is

adopted herein as part of the ruling on Plaintiff’s request for a

T.R.O.

Younger abstention applies here since Plaintiff has not

shown that the state court does not provide an adequate opportunity to

raise the arguments he presents in his request for a T.R.O. 

Woodfeathers, Inc. v. Washington County, Or., 180 F.3d 1017, 1020 (9th

Cir. 1999) (“Younger abstention applies with equal force, however,

without regard to whether the state proceedings are pending in the

trial or appellate court.”). “State courts are presumed adequate to

raise federal questions ‘in the absence of unambiguous authority to

the contrary.’” Id. (citation omitted).

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a T.R.O. is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.2

Dated: April 21, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00988-DFL -KJM Document 60 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 2