Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00850/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00850-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD RANDOLPH DAYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAIRFEILD MOBILE HOME AND RV 

PARK LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-00850-DJC-DB

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

(Mot. for Temp. Rest. Order (“TRO Mot.”) (ECF No. 2)) seeking to enjoin enforcement 

of the Solano County Superior Court’s unlawful detainer judgement against Plaintiff. 

(See TRO Mot. at 1–3; Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 4.) For the reasons discussed below, the 

Court does not have jurisdiction to grant this request and accordingly DENIES 

Plaintiff’s Motion. 

I. Background

Plaintiff Edward Dayton was a party to an unlawful detainer action in Solano 

County Superior Court brought by Defendant Fairfield Mobile Home and RV Park, LLC 

(“Fairfield RV Park”). (Compl. at 1–2.) Following trial on the action, Commissioner 

Susan Rados entered judgement in favor of Fairfield RV Park. (Id.) The Solano County 

////

Case 2:24-cv-00850-DJC-SCR Document 5 Filed 03/20/24 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

Sherriff’s Department then began execution of the judgement by taking possession of 

Plaintiff’s home. (Id.) 

Though it is not entirely clear, the Court understands Plaintiff to assert the 

following causes of action against three separate defendants: first, he alleges that the 

Superior Court violated his due process rights by allowing the action to be 

adjudicated by Commissioner Rados and by preventing Plaintiff from presenting his 

case; second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sherriff Thomas Ferrara violated 

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by seizing his home in an unreasonable manner; 

and finally, Plaintiff attempts to bring claims against Fairfield RV Park alleging that 

Fairfield RV Park has caused him harm, but fails to state the legal basis for these 

claims. (Id. at 1–4.) The Complaint and present Motion both seek injunctive relief

from “further execution and enforcement of the Court Judgement,” and Plaintiff 

additionally seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 4.) 

II. Analysis 

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a district court lacks jurisdiction over cases 

asserting “injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court 

proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those 

judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); 

see Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). This doctrine bars both explicit and de facto

appeals of state court judgments to the district court. Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 

777 (9th Cir. 2012). In determining whether an action functions as a de facto appeal, 

the court looks to the relief sought by the Plaintiff. Id. at 777–78. An action is a de 

facto appeal “when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong 

allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that 

court.” Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003). “If claims raised in the 

federal court action are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court's decision such 

that the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require 

Case 2:24-cv-00850-DJC-SCR Document 5 Filed 03/20/24 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

3

the district court to interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules . . .” then 

the court lacks jurisdiction over those claims. Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 

898 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief from the state court’s unlawful detainer 

judgement is a request for a de facto appeal of that judgement. Plaintiff complains 

that the state court violated his due process rights in entering the judgement and 

seeks to enjoin the Solano County Sherriff’s Department from enforcing that 

judgement against him. Though the request is couched in terms of a section 1983 

action and not a direct appeal of the state court judgement, the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine “bars a plaintiff from bringing a § 1983 suit to remedy an injury inflicted by

the state court's decision.” Jensen v. Foley, 295 F.3d 745, 747 (7th Cir. 2002)

(emphasis in original). Ultimately, the injury sought to be remedied by the injunction

— the Sherriff’s Department’s possession of Plaintiff’s home — was inflicted by the 

unlawful detainer judgement authorizing such possession of the home. The relief 

therefore centers on the propriety of that judgment. See Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 

F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the court had no jurisdiction to hear a claim 

alleging that a state court violated the plaintiff’s due process rights and requesting the 

federal court to recall that decision). 

Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction over these claims, and thus cannot 

grant the relief sought. 

III. Conclusion

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and his claim against the 

Solano County Superior Court is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

1

 Franklin v. State 

1 The Court is not dismissing the entire case for lack of jurisdiction because it believes it may have

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s separate but related claim that Defendant Sherriff Thomas Ferrara violated 

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by unreasonably seizing his property. (See Compl. at 1, 3–4.); 

Though Plaintiff’s challenge to Defendant Ferrara’s authority to seize the property is “inextricably 

intertwined” with the unlawful detainer judgement, the challenge to the manner in which the property 

was seized is not. As alleged, the manner of the seizure may constitute a separate legal wrong not 

Case 2:24-cv-00850-DJC-SCR Document 5 Filed 03/20/24 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

of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (a district court “may 

dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.”). 

This case is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further 

pretrial proceedings. See L.R. 302(c)(21).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DJC2 — Dayton24cv00850

engendered by the state court judgement. However, this alleged harm is a past harm for which Plaintiff 

does not seek an injunction. (See Compl. at 4 (requesting money damages for the damage caused by 

Defendant Ferrara).) 

Case 2:24-cv-00850-DJC-SCR Document 5 Filed 03/20/24 Page 4 of 4