James Ortiz v. State of California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JAMES ORTIZ; YOLANDA Y. ) No. 18-56097
ORTIZ, )
) D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05562-SJO-PLA
Plaintiffs-Appellants, )
) MEMORANDUM*
v. )
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; )
CITIBANK, NA, as Trustee for )
American Home Mortgage Assets )
Trust 2006-3, Mortgage Backed )
Pass Through Certificates Series )
2006-3, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Central California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, M. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
James Ortiz and Yolanda Ortiz (hereafter collectively “the Ortizes”) appeal
the district court’s dismissal of their action against the State of California1 and
Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (hereafter “Citibank”). We affirm.
The Ortizes sought to enjoin proceedings in an unlawful detainer action
previously filed against them by Citibank and proceeding in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. However, as the district
court held, due to the provisions of the Anti-Injunction Act, it could “not grant an
injunction to stay proceedings in [the] State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283; see also
California v. Randtron, 284 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2002). We are aware of the
exceptions set forth in that Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283. However, nothing in the
record suggests that the Ortizes’ claims fell within one of those “narrow”2
exceptions, and if there were some doubt, we would have to resolve the doubt in
favor of the Anti-Injunction Act’s prohibition.3
1
On appeal, the Ortizes have waived their claims against the State of
California by stating that the State should not have been named as a defendant and
its dismissal was appropriate.
2
See Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 306, 131 S. Ct. 2368, 2375, 180 L.
Ed. 2d 341 (2011).
3
See Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281,
297, 90 S. Ct. 1739, 1748, 26 L. Ed. 2d 234 (1970). We do not overlook the
(continued...)
2
Moreover, because it is apparent that any amendment by the Ortizes would
fail to overcome the strictures of the Anti-Injunction Act, and would, therefore, be
futile, the district court did not err when it denied leave to amend. See Missouri ex
rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 655–56 (9th Cir. 2017).4
AFFIRMED.
3
(...continued)
Ortizes’ suggestion that their claims could possibly fall under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 242–43, 92 S. Ct. 2151, 2162, 32 L. Ed. 2d
705 (1972). However, they did not plead that, and could not pursue an action
against the State of California under § 1983. Moreover, there is no indication that
Citibank was or is a state actor or an entity acting in concert with a state actor. See
Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 708 (9th Cir. 1991); Howerton v. Gabica, 708 F.2d
380, 382–83 (9th Cir. 1983); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct.
2250, 2255, 101 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1988).
4
In light of our decision regarding the Anti-Injunction Act, we need not, and
do not, take up the other issues raised by the parties on appeal.
3