1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATASHA MORA, 12 Petitioner, No. 2:25-cv-2299-TLN-SCR 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY ORDER COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT 15 OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION, 16 Respondent, 17 and 18 CHRISTOPHER M. KLEIN, United States 19 Bankruptcy Judge, BLACK HORSE CAPITAL, FINE CAPITAL 20 INVESTMENTS, et al.,

21 Real Party in Interest.

22 23 Petitioner Natasha Mora (“Petitioner”) initiated this action by filing a Petition for Writ of 24 Mandamus (“Petition”) on August 13, 2025. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, this matter 25 was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and

(b)(1). 26 On August 29, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 27 recommending dismissal of the Petition and denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order, 28 which were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 1 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner filed timely 2 objections to those findings and recommendations, as well as a First Amended Petition for a Writ 3 of Mandamus (“First Amended Petition”) and a renewed motion for a temporary restraining 4 order. (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10.) On September 8, 2025, the magistrate judge filed additional 5 findings and recommendations, recommending dismissal of the Amended Petition and denial of 6 the renewed motion for a temporary restraining order, which were served on Petitioner and which 7 contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 8 filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 11.) Petitioner filed timely objections to those findings 9 and recommendations. (ECF No. 12.) 10 Petitioner’s objections to the second set of findings and recommendations include a 11 proposed Supplement to the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (“Supplement”), with the assertion 12 that such Supplement cures the defects with the First Amended Petition identified in the 13 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 12 at 2, 7–32.) The Court finds the 14 Supplement does not cure those defects. 15 The magistrate judge found that the original Petition should be dismissed because 16 Petitioner did not identify clear legal error by Judge Klein and because appellate review is 17 available, among other reasons. (ECF No. 5 at 11–16.) Similar reasons support denial of the 18 Supplement. Petitioner has not shown Judge Klein committed clear error with respect to 11

, 549 or California’s Uniform Voidable Transaction Act (“CUVTA”), or even that 20 Petitioner presented her legal theories under those laws to Judge Klein. Additionally, Petitioner’s 21 argument that “Appeals under § 158 are too slow” lacks meaningful support and also lacks merit 22 because Petitioner did not appeal the orders she now contests, including Judge Klein’s order 23 entered more than a year ago. (ECF No. 12 at 28.) 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 Having reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 1 | supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 29, 2025, (ECF No. 5), and September 8, 4 2025, (ECF No. 11), are ADOPTED in full; 5 2. Petitioner’s Proposed Supplement to her Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (ECF No. 12 at 6 7-37), is DISMISSED; 7 3. Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (ECF No. 8), is DISMISSED; 8 4. Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, (ECF No. 3), is DENIED; 9 5. Petitioner’s Renewed Motions for Temporary Restraining Orders, (ECF Nos. 7, 10), are 10 DENIED; and 11 6. This action is DISMISSED and this case is closed. 12 13 | DATED: October 9, 2025 14 7, 15 16 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28