Donius v. Mazzetti

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Plaintiffs Marvin Donius and Rincon Mushroom Corporation of America, Inc.’s motion for an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs sought to prevent Rincon tribal officials from enforcing a tribal civil contempt order authorizing removal of structures and property and restricting access to the property. The court concluded that Plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their claims concerning Fourth Amendment rights, due process, tribal jurisdiction, or registration of the tribal judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs were not entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction because they failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
2. Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their Section 1983 unreasonable-search-and-seizure claim because the tribal defendants acted under tribal law and the Tribal Court's orders, not under color of state law.
3. Plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on their argument that the Tribe was impermissibly exercising criminal jurisdiction over them.
4. Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their due process claim because the tribal defendants were not acting under color of state law and plaintiffs had not exhausted available tribal remedies concerning the amended judgment or contempt order.
5. Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on their claim that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction to impose or enforce the contempt order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on a Section 1983 Fourth Amendment unreasonable-search-and-seizure claim against tribal defendants enforcing tribal court orders.
2. Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim challenging enforcement of the tribal contempt order and amended judgment.
3. Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction to impose and enforce the civil contempt order.
4. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the Winter requirements for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Disposition

denied