Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02454/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02454-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 is a “prisoner” within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(PLRA) because he was a prisoner at the time he commenced this action. That is, Plaintiff

was a “person incarcerated or detained in any facility” who had been convicted and

sentenced for violations of criminal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). As a

consequence, this case is subject to requirements under the PLRA and this action is subject

to screening by the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Stoller, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2454-PHX-GMS (JFM)

ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher Stoller, who is incarcerated in the Dixon Correctional Center in

Dixon, Illinois, commenced this action in the Central District of Illinois.1

 That Court

transferred the action to this District based on venue. (Doc. 1, 2.) In an Order filed on

January 3, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis with leave

to pay the filing fee or submit an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non-Habeas)

Case 2:11-cv-02454-GMS--JFM Document 28 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

on this District’s approved form for use by prisoners within 30 days. (Doc. 16.) The Court

also denied Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and ordered him to show

cause within 30 days why this action should not be dismissed based on his lack of capacity

to commence this action at the time he filed it. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory

appeal. (Doc. 19.) 

On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to stop

foreclosure of an Arizona property on January 13, 2012. (Doc. 26.) Attached to Plaintiff’s

motion is a copy of an “Arizona Regional MLS-IMAPP Maricopa County Tax Report” for

the property at issue. (See also doc. 1, ex. 5) (quit claim deed). This document reflects that

the current owner of the property is the “Christopher Stoller Pension & Profit Sharing Plan,

Ltd.” (CSPPSP), pursuant to a quit claim deed from the original buyer of the property, Phillip

B. Stone, to CSPPSP of September 22, 2008. (Doc. 1, ex. 5.) 

To obtain injunctive relief, the moving party must show “that he is likely to succeed

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008); Am. Trucking Assoc., Inc.

v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, the “serious

questions” version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after

the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.

3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Under that test, a preliminary injunction is appropriate

when a plaintiff demonstrates that “serious questions going to the merits were raised and the

balance of hardships tips sharply in [plaintiff’s] favor.” Id. (citing Lands Council v. McNair,

537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). That approach requires that the elements of

the preliminary injunction test be balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may

offset a weaker showing of another. “For example, a stronger showing of irreparable harm

to plaintiff might offset a lesser showing of likelihood of success on the merits.” Alliance

for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135. A plaintiff must also satisfy the other Winter factors,

Case 2:11-cv-02454-GMS--JFM Document 28 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 4
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

 CSPPSP is not a party to this action.

- 3 -

including the likelihood of irreparable harm. Id. The moving party has the burden of proof

on each element of the test. Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp.

2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). 

“No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party.”

Fed.R.Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Further, a temporary restraining order without notice may be granted

only if the applicant certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, that he made to give

notice and the reasons that notice should not be required. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b). 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff appears to concede that he lacked the legal capacity to

commence this action and continues to lack such capacity. (Doc. 26 at 2, n.1.) Even if

Plaintiff had the legal capacity to commence this case, the information provided by Plaintiff

reflects that CSPPSP, not Plaintiff, is the current owner of the property at issue.2

 An entity,

such as CSPPSP, may only be represented by an attorney licensed to appear in federal court.

28 U.S.C. § 1654; Simon v. Hartford Live, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff

neither claims nor does it otherwise appear that he is an attorney licensed to appear in federal

court. See Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347, 347-48 (8th Cir. 1994) (nonlawyer purported trustees could not represent trust in United States court) (citing C.E. Pope

Equity Trust, 818 F.2d at 697-98); United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3

F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“Corporations and other unincorporated

associations must appear in court through an attorney”); Mutual Assignment &

Indemnification Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 860 (7th Cir. 2004)

(limited liability partnership could only be represented by an attorney in federal court); Move

Org. v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 555 F. Supp. 684, 692-93 (E.D. Pa. 1983)

(unincorporated organization must appear in federal court through attorney). 

The record before the Court does not reflect that Plaintiff is an owner of the property

or that Plaintiff is a licensed attorney who may represent the CSPPSP. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief will be denied. 

Case 2:11-cv-02454-GMS--JFM Document 28 Filed 01/13/12 Page 3 of 4
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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.

(Doc. 26.) 

DATED this 13th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02454-GMS--JFM Document 28 Filed 01/13/12 Page 4 of 4