Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-00437/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-00437-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD COTRELLE TIDWELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CARRINGTON REAL ESTATE

SERVICES (US), LLC, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00437 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION

FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 18), to the extent

comprehensible, is based on an underlying unlawful detainer action and writs issued by the state

court on November 8, 2011 (although plaintiff states “it is overwhelmingly evident the Lord

Jesus Christ has intervened thereby causing the November 8, 2011 Writ to expire”); August 22,

2016; and March 10, 2017 (see id. at 2, 4, 6, 10). The application is DENIED. Plaintiff

currently resides in the property at issue (id. at 9). Nothing that allegedly happened in the

recent past indicates the underlying unlawful detainer action threatens imminent and immediate

eviction (see, e.g., id. at 3–4). Even if it did, due process has been satisfied by the due process

supplied by the state court. To the extent that plaintiff has a grievance with a writ issued by the

state court or an ongoing unlawful detainer action against him, he should direct those

grievances to the state court, not federal court.

Case 3:17-cv-00437-WHA Document 20 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

If plaintiff proposes to pursue this federal action, then this denial of a temporary

restraining order is without prejudice to a motion, properly made and served, for a preliminary

injunction directed at the proper defendants. So advising, this order does not suggest that such a

motion could be brought in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00437-WHA Document 20 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 2