Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06505/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06505-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES KINNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROGER W. BOREN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06505-VC 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 

FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND DISMISSING

COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 7

Kinney's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order seeks in effect to reverse a

California Court of Appeal decision requiring that Kinney post a security as a vexatious litigant.1 

See Kempton v. Clarke, No. B266125 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct 12, 2016); Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 391.1. 

Kinney has also filed a complaint, which rests on the same allegedly "erroneous decision by a 

state court." Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). Neither action is proper in a 

federal district court, which doesn't sit in appeal of state-court decisions. Id.; see also Cooper v. 

Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Kinney's request for a restraining order 

is denied, and Kinney's complaint is dismissed with prejudice sua sponte. See Franklin v. State 

of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981).

Kinney is cautioned against filing frivolous or bad-faith actions. Based on his history in 

the Northern District, Kinney should be well aware of the reasons claims of this kind can't 

 

1 Kinney has been declared a vexatious litigant in California Superior Court and at the California 

Court of Appeal. Kempton v. Clark, No. B248713, 2014 WL 4772269, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 

25, 2014), reh'g denied (Oct. 14, 2014), review denied (Dec. 17, 2014); In re Kinney, 201 Cal. 

App. 4th 951, 960 (2011). He has also been declared a vexatious litigant in the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of California. Order (Dkt. 70), Kinney v. Cooper, No. 15-cv-8910 

(C.D. Cal. May 13, 2016).

Case 3:16-cv-06505-VC Document 12 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 2
2

proceed – lack of jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and preclusion chief among them. See Order 

(Dkt. 33), Kinney v. State Bar of Cal., No. 16-cv-02277-MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2016); Order 

(Dkt. 9), Kinney v. Lavin, No. C 14-3817 PJH (N.D. Cal. Aug 22, 2014). Kinney has already 

been disbarred for his abusive litigation practices. See In the Matter of Charles Gadsden Kinney, 

Case Nos. 09-O-18100 (09-O-18760), at 14-15 (State Bar Ct. of Cal. Dec. 12, 2014). But even 

as a private pro se litigant, he may still be sanctioned under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 

Wages v. I.R.S., 915 F.2d 1230, 1235-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2016

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06505-VC Document 12 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 2