Merritt v. Housing and Urban Development

4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARDY MERRITT, Case No. 24-cv-03968-MMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., Defendants.

13 By order filed July 16, 2024, the Court dismissed the above-titled action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, for the same reason, denied plaintiff's motion for an injunction, whereby plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, sought an order enjoining an unlawful detainer proceeding pending in state court.

17 Now before the Court is plaintiff's "Affidavit in Support of Motion for Reconsideration," filed July 19, 2024, whereby plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the order denying his motion for an injunction. In support of such request, plaintiff provides additional factual detail regarding his contention that the state court made errors in the course of the above-referenced state court action and asserts reconsideration is proper in light of those additional facts.

23 The Court, having read and considered the motion for reconsideration, rules as follows.

25 First, the motion is procedurally deficient, as plaintiff has not sought, much less obtained, leave to file a motion for reconsideration, as is required by the Local Rules of this District. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a).

1 did not fail to consider material facts before denying the motion for an injunction. Indeed, || the motion was not denied due to a lack of facts, but, rather, as was explained in the || Court's prior Order, because district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin state || court proceedings. See Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 294-95 (1970) (holding district courts lack "power" to "enjoin || state court proceedings’).

7 Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 || Dated: July 26, 2024 .

INE M. CHESNEY 11 United States District Judge