Carson v. Leyva CA5

Filed 6/27/14 Carson v. Leyva CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ROBERT J. CARSON, F067556 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 13CECG01677) v.

ANAVEL LEYVA, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Carlos Cabrera, Judge. Robert J. Carson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.

In this landlord/tenant dispute, appellant Robert J. Carson, challenges the denial of his request for a civil harassment restraining order against respondent Anavel Leyva. We affirm. BACKGROUND Carson was a tenant in a house owned by Leyva. In his restraining order request, Carson alleged that Leyva was trying to force him out of the house by shutting off the utilities. Then, despite Carson still living there, Leyva arrived at the residence to show it to prospective renters. This resulted in a physical disturbance with police involvement. According to Carson, Leyva and three men attacked him and his elderly dog without provocation. However, the police report, attached as an exhibit to Carson’s request, also described Leyva’s side. Leyva claimed that Carson struck her first and she hit back in “self defense.” Leyva also stated she was under the impression that Carson no longer lived there. The trial court denied Carson’s request for a restraining order on the ground that the matter involved a landlord/tenant issue. DISCUSSION The basis for Carson’s appeal is unclear. He appears to be objecting to the trial court’s use of a form order. The court checked the boxes stating the request was denied for the reason that “Matter involves landlord/tenant and/or roommate issue.” Carson interprets this order as demonstrating that the trial court disregarded “any/all papers filed.” He also asserts that this type of “judge findings/orders instigates and allows more violence.” Carson further states that Leyva “has and still continues to retaliate and perpetrate unlawful and illegal acts of violence and stalkings and harassing behavior to coerce, intimidate and creating a reasonable fear of great bodily injury.” Carson concludes that he is “shocked” that the courts “can and do close their eyes to such acts.”