Friebel v. Bosenko CA3

Filed 4/18/13 Friebel v. Bosenko CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

SUSAN FRIEBEL, C071138

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 174571)

v.

TOM BOSENKO,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff and appellant Susan Friebel, appearing pro se, appeals from the denial of her request that the trial court enter a civil harassment restraining order against Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (d).) We cannot discern from Friebel’s one-page argument on appeal why she believes the trial court erred in denying her request and, in any event, we must affirm summarily, because Friebel has not produced a record sufficient to enable appellate review. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Friebel filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and injunction to prevent Bosenko from harassing her. Asked in the petition to describe how Bosenko harassed

1

her, Friebel wrote: “Sheriff Tom Bosenko seem [sic] to behave with high confident misconduct that is the purpose of my restraining order. He persuades important officials my insurance settlement is his. Murder is said to be involved: please check Mormon contacts of Bosenko/Robinson.” At other times, Friebel averred, “[f]rom the date I attended a seminar How to Collect missing money that Belongs to a victim, a strong violent attack[,] hundreds of attacks[.] Bosenko’s kin call his ‘surge’: pressure, lying about me: I have been advise and I [illegible], on things native American Indians do not use, and much more to attack my reputation.” The trial court denied Friebel’s request for a temporary restraining order. No response from Bosenko appears in the record. The trial court conducted an unreported hearing on Friebel’s petition. According to the minute order of those proceedings, Friebel appeared, testified, and requested that “the Court rescind a levy on her personal property and funds.” The court told Friebel its jurisdiction is limited to the requests made in her application for a restraining order; her application does not request an order to rescind a levy. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied Friebel’s petition, finding Friebel failed to meet her burden of establishing the need for a restraining order by clear and convincing evidence.