Latronica v. Lynch et al, No. 1:2016cv01352 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 12 & 14 Plaintiff's Motions for Arrest Warrants and Injunctions be DENIED re 10 Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/28/2016. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MELANIE C. LATRONICA, Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 1:16-cv-01352-LJO-SAB FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ARREST WARRANTS AND INJUNCTIONS v. 15 MERRILL LYNCH, et al., 16 Defendants. (ECF No. 12, 14) OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 17 18 19 Plaintiff Melanie C. Latronica, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action 20 on September 12, 2016. 21 I. 22 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 23 On September 26, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 24 (ECF No. 5.) On September 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint dated September 23, 2016, and 25 therefore, it was filed prior to Plaintiff receiving the Court’s order dismissing the complaint with 26 leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice that she had 27 received the Court’s order dismissing her complaint and that she would be filing an amended 28 complaint. (ECF No. 8.) On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint and a 1 1 motion for an injunction. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) 2 On November 7, 2016, the undersigned issued a findings and recommendations 3 recommending that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and 4 Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction be denied as moot. (ECF No. 11.) On that same date, the 5 findings and recommendations was served on Plaintiff. 6 On November 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for arrest warrants and injunctions. (ECF 7 No. 12.) Plaintiff set a hearing on the motion for December 14, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. before the 8 undersigned. On November 22, 2016, the Court vacated the December 14, 2016 hearing and 9 took the matter under submission. (ECF No. 17.) 10 On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document which the Court construed as a motion 11 for the undersigned to recuse himself. (ECF No. 15.) On November 22, 2016, the undersigned 12 denied Plaintiff’s motion for recusal. (ECF No. 16.) 13 On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Petition Motion: Writ of 14 Prohibition Mandamus.” (ECF No. 14.) The Court construes this motion as another motion for 15 arrest warrants and injunctions. 16 For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motions for arrest 17 warrants and injunctions (ECF Nos. 12, 14) be denied. 18 II. 19 LEGAL STANDARD 20 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 21 v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A 22 court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the plaintiff establishes four elements: (1) 23 likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of suffering irreparable harm absent a 24 preliminary injunction; (3) the balance of equities tips in plaintiff’s favor; and (4) injunctive 25 relief is in the public interest.” Leigh v. Salazar, 677 F.3d 892, 896 (2012); Alliance for Wild 26 Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010). An injunction may only be awarded 27 upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 376 (citation 28 omitted) (emphasis added). 2 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION Plaintiff states in her November 7, 2016 motion for arrest warrants and injunctions that 3 4 she is seeking arrest warrants against numerous people, including a number of judges. (ECF No. 5 12 at 3-4.)1 It appears that Plaintiff alleges that defendants are conducting ongoing torture and 6 are filing unlawful detainer cases and evictions. Plaintiff’s November 7, 2016 filing contains a 7 number of delusional, fanciful, and incomprehensible statements similar to the statements she 8 made in her first amended complaint and other filings. For example, Plaintiff states, “human 9 trafficking against Miss Latronica has been going on since she was stolen as a baby and she’s 10 NOT-IN-HER-BODY ongoing torture and gross life deprivation. As of this day; she’s still 11 being tortured in UX bodies.” (ECF No. 12 at 6 (emphasis in the original).) In Plaintiff’s November 17, 2016 motion for arrest warrants and injunctions, Plaintiff 12 13 asks the Court to stop the named people from torturing Plaintiff. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff states 14 that she wants the Court to “dismiss Robert Cole[’]s filing of a fraudulent unlawful detainer case 15 only, to please dismiss the summary judgment by means of a Tentative Ruling Announcement 16 signed by John D Freeland and that these Respondents immediately be apprehended for 17 prosecution and that Plaintiff be restored back to her Cottage Home Unit for further Court 18 proceedings in Modesto and in Fresno.” (ECF No. 14 at 2.) No Likelihood of Success on Plaintiff’s Claims 19 A. 20 In order to qualify for injunctive relief, Plaintiff must, at minimum, demonstrate a “fair 21 chance of success” that her claims will ultimately prevail on their merits. See, e.g., Johnson v. 22 Calif. State Bd. Of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). This means that Plaintiff 23 must demonstrate some likelihood of obtaining a favorable result in her case in chief. Original 24 Appalachian Artworks v. Topps Chewing Gum, 642 F. Supp. 1031, 1034 (N.D. Ga. 1986); A&M 25 Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1005, fn. 3 (9th Cir. 2001). No matter how severe 26 or irreparable the injury asserted, an injunction should never issue if the moving party’s claims 27 28 1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the CM/ECF electronic court docketing system. 3 1 are so legally untenable that there is virtually no chance of prevailing on the merits. State of 2 Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 180 (5th Cir. 1975). 3 The implausibility of the claims asserted by Plaintiff makes it impossible for this Court to 4 conclude there is any likelihood she will ultimately prevail on the merits. The undersigned 5 recommended that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend on 6 November 7, 2016. (ECF No. 11.) Objections to the findings and recommendations are due by 7 December 12, 2016. If the District Judge adopts the undersigned’s findings and 8 recommendations, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend 9 and the action will be closed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions for arrest warrants and injunctions 10 should be denied. Below, the Court sets forth several additional reasons why the Court cannot 11 issue Plaintiff’s requested arrest warrants and injunctions. 12 B. Court Cannot Initiate a Criminal Prosecution 13 The United States Constitution delegates powers of the Federal Government into three 14 defined categories: the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. 15 Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 721 (1986). It is the Executive Branch of the United States that 16 has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case. United 17 States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974). As the Judicial Branch, this Court does not have the 18 power to criminally prosecute any individual or issue an order for the arrest of the people 19 Plaintiff requests. 20 C. Federal Court Cannot Direct State Court to Issue Arrest Warrants 21 Similarly, under our federal system of government the allocation of powers sets the 22 responsibilities of the states and the federal government. Bond v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 23 2364 (2011). This allocation of powers “preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual 24 sovereignty of the States.” Id. “The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that 25 States function as political entities in their own right.” Id. Plaintiff cites a number of sections of 26 the California Penal Code in her motions for arrest warrants and injunctions. Accordingly, to the 27 extent that Plaintiff is asking the federal court to direct the state court to issue arrest warrants, the 28 federal court does not have the authority to order the state court judges to issue arrest warrants. 4 1 D. Unlawful Detainer Action is Within Province of State Courts 2 Plaintiff requests the Court dismiss Robert Cole’s unlawful detainer action. Based on 3 Plaintiff’s filing, it appears that there is a pending or recently completed action for unlawful 4 detainer against her based on California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. Unlawful 5 detainer actions are strictly within the province of the state courts. See PNC Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. 6 Ahluwalia, No. C 15-01264 WHA, 2015 WL 3866892, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015) 7 (collecting cases). Therefore, this Court cannot litigate or interfere with the unlawful detainer 8 action against Plaintiff. 9 IV. 10 RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for 11 12 arrest warrants and injunctions (ECF Nos. 12, 14) be DENIED. This findings and recommendation is submitted to the district judge assigned to this 13 14 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 15 (14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings 16 and recommendation with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 17 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the 18 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 19 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 20 waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 21 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 28, 2016 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
