Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01876/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01876-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner 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

MICHAEL T PINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF ATASCADERO STATE 

HOSPITAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-03849-SI 

ORDER DENYING AMENDED 

REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 7

Plaintiff has filed a first amended application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and 

preliminary injunction to (a) compel his release from custody and (b) set aside three judgments 

from the San Diego County Superior Court. 

The amended application for a TRO and preliminary injunction to compel plaintiff’s 

release from custody is DENIED for the reasons stated in the July 10, 2018, order denying request 

for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. Docket No. 7. 

Plaintiff’s request for a TRO and preliminary injunction to set aside three judgments in San 

Diego County Superior Court also is DENIED. Docket No. 7. First, plaintiff has not provided 

any record of the cases in San Diego County Superior Court. He states that the minutes are 

submitted (see id. at 1), but there are no court minutes attached to his application. This court does 

not have ready access to the records of a state court and thus relies on litigants to submit the filings 

from a state court that are necessary for consideration of any request to this court. Asking this 

court to take judicial notice of the records of another court does not solve the problem because the 

litigant still must present a copy of the records that he wants judicially noticed. Second, the 

request appears to run afoul of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. A federal district court is a court of 

original jurisdiction and does not have appellate jurisdiction over a decision from a state superior 

Case 3:18-cv-01876-MMA-JLB Document 9 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
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

court. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983); 

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923) (district courts may not exercise 

appellate jurisdiction over state courts). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine essentially bars federal 

district courts “from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from 

a state court judgment.” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). Nothing 

in the record suggests this court could set aside any judgment of the San Diego County Superior 

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2018

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01876-MMA-JLB Document 9 Filed 07/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2