Wolpert

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. 2:26-cv-0239-DC-JDP

CALIFORNIA,

12

Plaintiff,

13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

14

DAVID ALEXANDER WOLPERT,

15

Defendant.

16

17

18 Plaintiff filed a notice of removal of two pending state criminal cases, one from

19 Sacramento County and one from San Mateo County. ECF No. 1. On April 21, 2026, I issued

20 recommendations that this matter be remanded to the state courts. ECF No. 4. While those

21 recommendations were pending, defendant filed objections and a motion for a temporary

22 restraining order. ECF Nos. 5 & 6. For the reasons below, I recommend that defendant’s motion

23 for injunctive relief be denied.

24 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

25 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Lopez v.

26 Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972

27 (1997) (per curiam)); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)

28 (citation omitted) (“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of

1 right”). Nonetheless, “federal courts must not shrink from their obligation to enforce the

2 constitutional rights of all persons, including prisoners,” and must not “allow constitutional

3 violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison

4 administration.” Porretti v. Dzurenda, 11 F.4th 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).

5 A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) he is likely to succeed on the

6 merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the

7 balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555

8 U.S. at 20. The “balance of equities” concerns the burdens or hardships to a prisoner complainant

9 compared with the burden on the government defendants if an injunction is ordered. Id. The

10 public interest mostly concerns the injunction’s impact on nonparties. Id. (citation omitted).

11 Regardless, “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional

12 rights.” Id. (citation omitted).

13 Where a party seeks a mandatory injunction, rather than a prohibitory injunction,

14 injunctive relief is “subject to a higher standard” and is “permissible when ‘extreme or very

15 serious damage will result’ that is not ‘capable of compensation in damages,’ and the merits of

16 the case are not ‘doubtful.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 999 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting

17 Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009)).

18 Defendant seeks an injunctive to stay a criminal proceeding occurring May 13, 2026 in

19 Sacramento Superior Court. ECF No. 6. Defendant states that the hearing tomorrow “concerns

20 ongoing competency, conditional-release, disability, liberty, and due-process matters.” Id. at 1.

21 Defendant appears to be primarily concerned with the fact that the state court is not

22 accommodating his disability (plaintiff suffers from keratoconus, which impacts his ability to

23 see). Id. at 4. He also raises concerns about ineffective assistance of counsel, his right to testify,

24 involuntary medication, jury selection, speedy trial violations, prolonged detention, false

25 testimony, and more. See id. generally.

26 As an initial matter, I previously recommended that this case be remanded to state court.

27 See ECF No. 4. Therefore, defendant cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.

28 See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is

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

2 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the

3 public interest.”).

4 Turning to the merits, 8 U.S.C. § 1443 does not independently authorize a federal court to

5 stay a state court proceeding. Section 1443 is a civil rights removal statute; it empowers

6 qualifying defendants to transfer eligible cases from state to federal court, but it does not contain

7 independent authority to enjoin or stay state proceedings.1 Further, as this court previously

8 explained, defendant did not properly remove this action under section 1443. See ECF No. 4.

9 Defendant argues, however, that federal courts can stay state court proceedings under the

10 Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. That statute provides that “a court of the United States

11 may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by

12 Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its

13 judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. But section 1443 is neither enumerated as an express exception

14 to the Act, nor does it contain language authorizing injunctive relief.

15 Finally, defendant claims that the Younger abstention doctrine does not prohibit his

16 request. I disagree. The Younger abstention doctrine generally prohibits federal courts from

17 staying or enjoining pending state court proceedings, including criminal cases. See

18 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). For Younger to apply,

19 these conditions must be met: “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the

20 proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state

21 proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has

22 the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971);

23 see also Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021). These conditions are met here.

24 There is an on-going state court proceeding; the next hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, May 13.

25 1 Indeed, had this court found that defendant properly removed this action under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1443, the state court proceedings would have been automatically stayed by operation of law.

26

Under § 1446(d), after a defendant files the notice of removal in federal court, the defendant must

27 give written notice to all adverse parties and file a copy with the clerk of the state court, “which

shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is

28 remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446. This language creates an automatic stay due to the removal itself.

1 | The proceeding is criminal in nature and therefore implicates important state interests. Defendant

2 | has not sufficiently argued that he is barred from raising constitutional concerns in state court.

3 | And the requested relief is explicitly to stay the state court proceeding. Accordingly, Younger

4 | applies, and this court should not intervene.

5 Defendant has failed to meet the especially high burden necessary for an ex parte

6 | temporary restraining order. See Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131

7 | (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that a temporary restraining order may issue ex parte only if it clearly

8 | appears that immediate and irreparable harm will occur in its absence and emphasizing that “our

9 | entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and

10 | an opportunity to be heard has been granted to both sides of a dispute”). Accordingly, I

11 |} recommend that the motion for injunctive relief be denied.

12 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for preliminary

13 || myunctive relief, ECF No. 6, be DENIED.

14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

15 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of

16 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the

17 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to

18 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed

19 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

20 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

21 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

22 | 1991).

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ May 12, 2026 q———

26 JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28