Mitiku v. Bentley CA4/1

Filed 5/25/22 Mitiku v. Bentley CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TEKLE MITIKU, D078329

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020- 00029368-CU-HR-CTL) RODERICK BENTLEY,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel Link, Judge. Affirmed. Tekle Mitiku, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

Tekle Mitiku, who is self-represented, appeals the superior court’s denial of his petition for a restraining order. Mitiku appears to argue that a neighbor is harassing his family and vandalizing his property. Because Mitiku fails to carry his burden to show any reversible error by the trial court, we must affirm.

BACKGROUND The limited record in this case shows that on November 4, 2020, after a hearing, the trial court issued a minute order denying Mitiku’s petition for a restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. The brief order indicates the parties were sworn to testify at the hearing and that Mitiku failed to meet his burden to prove the existence of harassment by clear and convincing evidence. Mitiku timely appealed from the order denying his petition. DISCUSSION Mitiku’s opening brief is difficult to understand but appears to argue that Mitiku and his family are the victims of ongoing harassment by a neighbor, Shandel Bentley. The underlying petition here was filed against

Shandel’s father Roderick Bentley.1 Without reference to any court records, Mitiku alleges that Shandel is a probationer who has been convicted of sex trafficking immigrants, like Mitiku’s family members, and that Shandel is pursuing Mitiku’s daughters and wife. Neither Mitiku’s brief nor the record before this court contains any explanation of what evidence was submitted in the trial court in support of his petition seeking to protect him from Shandel’s father Roderick. It is a “cardinal rule of appellate review that a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown.” (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.) “[T]he appellant has the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error.” (Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203