Raiser v. Casserly

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S PENDING EX PARTE MOTIONS 14 HON. TIMOTHY CASSERLY, et al., 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 28, 34, 40, 50, 51) 16 17 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Aaron Raiser’s Ex Parte Motions (A) for an 18 Order Declaring ECF Access Policies and Local Rule 7.1 Unconstitutional (ECF No. 28); 19 (B) for an Order Declaring Local Rule 7.1 Page Limit Unconstitutional (ECF No. 34); 20 (C) for Order of Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 40); (D) for an Order (1) That Only 21 Presiding Judge Personally Read All Pending and Future Applications, Motions and 22 Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Personally Draft The Orders Thereon With 23 No Staff Input; (2) That Certain Administrative Orders Be Entered To Prevent Further Bias 24 and Disruption To Proceedings And Case Transferred To Another Judge; (3) For Hearing 25 To Get Out in the Open What Is Happening In This Case From a Due 26 Process/Administrative Perspective and Talk About How Plaintiff Can Get a Fair 27 Adjudication With Proper Legal Analysis; (4) To Declare Present System of Delegation to 28 Court Staff and Interns Plaintiff’s Cases as Unconstitutional; (5) To Declare Present 1 System of Reliance on Case Summaries Unconstitutional; (6) That Only the Presiding 2 Judge in This Case Read This Ex Parte Application and Supporting Memorandum of Points 3 and Authorities, Supporting Cites and Draft the Order Thereon; and (7) To Declare 4 Allowing Staff To Search PACER (including Internal PACER) For Plaintiff’s Cases 5 Unconstitutional (ECF Nos. 50, 51).1 6 Including the five ex parte motions presently before the Court, Plaintiff has now 7 filed fourteen ex parte motions during this litigation. “In our adversary system, ex parte 8 motions are disfavored.” Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080, 1091 (2018); accord United 9 States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 1987)). Consequently, “opportunities 10 for legitimate ex parte applications are extremely limited.” Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Sols. 11 U.S. Operating Co., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-02116-APG, 2015 WL 4661981, at *1 (D. Nev. 12 July 29, 2015) (quoting In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal. 13 1989)). A proper ex parte motion must “address . . . why the regular noticed motion 14 procedures must be bypassed,” i.e., “it must show why the moving party should be allowed 15 to go to the head of the line in front of all other litigants and receive special treatment.” 16 Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). This 17 requires the moving party to “show that the moving party’s cause will be irreparably 18 prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion 19 procedures” and “that the moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires 20 ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Id. 21 None of Plaintiff’s pending ex parte motions meet these requirements. See generally 22 ECF Nos. 28, 34, 40, 50, 51. Plaintiff makes generalized arguments that he will suffer 23 irreparable harm because there are other motions pending and his case could be dismissed. 24 See, e.g., ECF Nos. 28 at 2, 34 at 2, 40 at 2, 50 at 2, 51 at 2. Those assertions, however, 25 do not warrant ex parte relief. Consequently, “[t]he pending motions are not properly 26 27 1 Plaintiff also filed ex parte motions for an Order (1) For Extension of Time to Serve / Re-Serve Summons 28 and Complaint on Non-Appearing Defendants; and (2) Allowing Discovery to Determine Doe Defendant 1 || brought in an ex parte manner.” See Maxson, 2015 WL 4661981, at *2. “While the Court 2 liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, pro se litigants are not relieved from 3 || following applicable rules of procedure, including the Local Rule requiring a showing of 4 ||compelling reasons for seeking relief on an ex parte basis.” Id. (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 5 || F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). “As a 6 ||result, the Court will not address the substance of the motions and they are hereby 7 ||DENIED. To the extent Plaintiff continues to seek the relief requested, [he] must file 8 ||the motions in accordance with the rules of this Court and provide notice of them to 9 || Defendant[s’] counsel.” See id. (emphasis in original). 10 Further, “the Court has outlined above the extremely limited circumstances in which 11 filing of an ex parte request is proper. The Court expects Plaintiff to refrain in the 12 future from filing ex parte requests when the appropriate circumstances do not exist for 13 ||such a filing.” See id. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: February 3, 2020 tt f Le 16 on. Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28