Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01171/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01171-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 

BERNARD CLARK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAPITAL INCOME AND GROWTH 

FUND, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01171-KJM-DAD 

ORDER 

On June 23, 2015, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a temporary 

restraining order (TRO). (ECF No. 3.) It appears plaintiff seeks an order staying the enforcement 

of a writ of possession issued by the Toulumne County Superior Court in an unlawful detainer 

action. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff does not provide a date of enforcement. “Under the Rooker–Feldman

doctrine, however, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the propriety of state court rulings, 

including a writ of possession rendered during the course of a state court unlawful detainer 

proceeding.” Tucker v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage Ass’n, No. 13-01874, 2013 WL 5159730, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Sept. 12, 2013) (collecting cases); see also Drawsand v. F.F. Properties, L.L.P., 866 F. 

Supp. 2d 1110, 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“To the extent that [the plaintiff] is attempting to 

challenge the adverse ruling in the [unlawful detainer] action, such claim is barred under the 

Rooker–Feldman doctrine.”). Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion. 

Case 2:15-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 4 Filed 06/23/15 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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 23, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01171-KJM-DAD Document 4 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 2