Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04603/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04603-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHERIE SAFAPOU,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIN COUNTY OF CALIFORNIA, 

CLERK OF COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04603-JST 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: ECF No. 1

Plaintiff Cherie Safapou has applied for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction. The Court will deny the application. 

Dr. Safapou’s application stems from her dissatisfaction with the outcome of a child 

custody proceeding in the Marin County Superior Court, which issued a restraining order against 

her and in favor of her ex-husband, Moosy Doroodian.

1

 Dr. Safapou requests that this Court 

enjoin the Marin County Superior Court from enforcing its own order; enjoin that court from 

imposing any “sanctions, fines, or costs” against Dr. Safapou; grant Dr. Safapou unsupervised 

visitation with her minor son or, preferably, primary custody; and restrain Mr. Doroodian from 

“filing more false and fabricated petitions, complaints and false reports in any venue and restrain 

him from interfering in the life and relationship of Dr. Safapou” and the couple’s minor son. ECF 

No. 1 at 11–12.

This district has enacted Civil Local Rule 65-1 to govern requests for, and issuance of, 

temporary restraining orders. That rule states, in part:

 

1

The couple’s minor son was also named as a protected party in the restraining order.

Case 3:15-cv-04603-JST Document 5 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(a) Documentation Required. An ex parte motion for a temporary 

restraining order must be accompanied by:

(1) A copy of the complaint;

(2) A separate memorandum of points and authorities in 

support of the motion;

(3) The proposed temporary restraining order; and

(4) Such other documents in support of the motion which the 

party wishes the Court to consider.

(b) Notice to Opposition of Ex Parte Motion. Unless relieved by 

order of a Judge for good cause shown, on or before the day of an ex 

parte motion for a temporary restraining order, counsel applying for 

the temporary restraining order must deliver notice of such motion 

to opposing counsel or party.

Local Civil Rule 65-1(a) & (b). Dr. Safapou’s application is not accompanied by a separate 

complaint2or a proposed temporary restraining order, and appears not to have been served on the 

Defendants. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 65-1, the application is not properly before the Court. 

Even if the Plaintiff were to cure these deficiencies in her application, however, the Court 

still could not consider it, because this Court has no authority to interfere in an ongoing state court 

proceeding. The federal Anti-Injunction Act, which controls here, provides as follows:

A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay 

proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of 

Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect 

or effectuate its judgments. 

28 U.S.C. § 2283. The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that the Act “is an absolute 

prohibition against enjoining state proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of [the] three 

specifically defined exceptions” to the Act. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of 

Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970). 

In her application, Dr. Safapou states that “my case belongs in federal court under federal 

question jurisdiction because it is about federal laws or rights such as Title 18, U.S.C. Section 241 

Conspiracy Against Rights; and section 242 deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law and 

others.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Nowhere, however, does she provide any basis for the Court to conclude 

 

2 Her application does use the word “complaint” on the front page, but in any event the document 

cannot be both a TRO application and a complaint simultaneously. 

Case 3:15-cv-04603-JST Document 5 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

that one of the three exceptions in the Anti-Injunction Act applies here. And although she names

her ex-husband individually as a defendant, the Court has no authority to grant relief as to him 

either, since an attempt to enjoin an individual’s participation in litigation is just as prohibited by 

the Act as an attempt to enjoin the state court itself. See Gloucester Marine Rys. Corp. v. Charles 

Parisi, Inc., 848 F.2d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 1988) (reversing district court’s grant of injunction against an 

individual’s enforcement of a state court judgment). 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s application is denied, and the case is dismissed. Her 

remedies, if any, lie in the state courts. The clerk will close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04603-JST Document 5 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 3