Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03500/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03500-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEDALIA BENTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL SERVICES,

INC., ET AL.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 15-03500 JSW

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER; (2) DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND

(3) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Now before the Court is the application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and

application to proceed in forma pauperis filed by plaintiff Sedalia Benton (“Plaintiff”), who is

proceeding pro se. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s papers and considered her arguments and

the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s

application for a TRO, DENIES her application to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES the

action with leave to amend.

A district court may deny in forma pauperis status and sua sponte dismiss an action under

certain circumstances, including when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or

when it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). In contravention of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a), Plaintiff has failed to file a pleading setting forth the grounds upon which this Court

has jurisdiction, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief, ... and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” 

Case 4:15-cv-03500-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the property located at 5804 E. 16th Street in Oakland,

California (the “Property”) and obtained a mortgage loan for the purchase on June 30, 2006. (Mot.

at 3.) She further alleges that the mortgage loan was modified on September 3, 2009 and that a

notice of default was filed on November 25, 2009. (Id.) Plaintiff does not allege whether a notice of

trustee’s sale has been scheduled. Nor it is clear whether Plaintiff defaulted on the modified loan

and/or whether she applied for another loan modification after September 3, 2009. If she did apply

for another loan modification, she does not allege when she did so. Plaintiff does not allege what

the alleged misconduct is by the defendants or what claim or claims she seeks to bring. In the

absence of such allegations, Plaintiff fails to state a claim. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is HEREBY DENIED and

the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this

action, she must file an amended complaint setting forth a cognizable legal claim and some factual

basis to support a claim with federal jurisdiction by August 28, 2015. Plaintiff may file a renewed

application to proceed in forma pauperis upon filing an amended complaint. Failure to file timely

an amended complaint shall result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiff’s application for a TRO is DENIED. In order

to obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff “must establish that

she is likely to succeed on the merits, that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and that an injunction is in the public

interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)

(citations omitted). The Winter court also noted that because injunctive relief is “an extraordinary

remedy,” it “may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”

129 S.Ct. at 375-76 (citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)). Thus

“[i]n each case, courts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on

each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.’” Id. at 376 (citing Amoco

Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)). On an ex parte motion for a TRO, the

moving plaintiff must allege “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show[ing]

Case 4:15-cv-03500-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse

party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65(b)(1)(A). 

Following Winter, courts in the Ninth Circuit may apply a sliding scale test when there is a

lesser showing of likelihood of success that amount to “serious questions on the merits” and the

balance of hardships tips strongly in the plaintiff’s favor, as long as the plaintiff satisfies the other

two prongs under Winter by showing that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the

injunction is in the public interest. Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134

(9th Cir. 2011). Because the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to allege a valid claim over which this

Court has jurisdiction, the Court DENIES the application for a TRO.

The Court advises Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains helpful

information about proceeding without an attorney, is available through the Court’s website or in the

Clerk’s office. The Court also advises Plaintiff that she also may wish to seek assistance from the

Legal Help Center. Plaintiff may call the Legal Help Center at 415-782-8982 or sign up on the 15th

Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse, Room 2796, or on the 4tth Floor of the Oakland Courthouse,

Room 470S, for a free appointment with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help,

but not legal representation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2015 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-03500-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/30/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:15-cv-03500-JSW Document 5 Filed 07/30/15 Page 4 of 4