Raiser v. San Diego County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 19-cv-00751-GPC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 13 v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO RECONSIDER AND 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, VACATE ECF NO. 211 15 Defendant. 16 17 On July 24, 2021, Plaintiff Aaron Raiser (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte Application 18 for an Order declaring that Plaintiff would not need to pay costs. ECF No. 202. On July 19 26, 2021, Defendant San Diego County (“Defendant”) responded in opposition 20 requesting additional time to resolve the issue of costs. ECF No. 203. On August 12, 21 2021, this Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte Application for an Order declaring he would 22 not have to pay costs, and granted an extension of time for Defendant to file a bill of 23 costs. ECF No. 211. Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte Application for an 24 Order to Reconsider and Vacate ECF No. 211. For the reasons set forth below, this Court 25 will permit Plaintiff to file the Motion ex parte but DENIES Plaintiff’s Application for an 26 Order to Reconsider and Vacate ECF No. 211. 27 1 In his moving papers, Mr. Raiser asserts that “as a result of ECF 211 Plaintiff is 2 being physically harmed in his health in not being able to visit his dentist due to having to 3 save up money to pay the costs the court improperly ordered.” ECF No. 216. Mr. 4 Raiser’s motion demonstrates a fundamental misreading of the Order Denying his 5 Application for Order Declaring Plaintiff Does Not Have to Pay Costs. The clear 6 language of the order denies Plaintiff’s preemptive attempt to avoid the payment of costs. 7 The Order finds that the application is premature in that a motion to tax costs had not yet 8 been filed. At bottom, the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the order demonstrates a failure to 9 fairly read the Court’s orders. As a result, Mr. Raiser is requesting relief based upon a 10 faulty premise. 11 Contrary to Plaintiff’s understanding, this Court’s Order in ECF No. 211 was not 12 an order that Plaintiff pay costs. At this time, no decision has been issued as to how 13 much, if anything, Plaintiff will need to pay Defendants. ECF No. 211 simply directs the 14 parties to follow the appropriate procedure for presenting information to the Court as to 15 what costs are claimed and allows Plaintiff the opportunity to contest costs once those 16 costs are made clear to the Court. See LR 54.1. This Court has merely ordered Plaintiff 17 not to step outside the proper procedure for determining whether costs should be awarded 18 or refused. 19 Once the Clerk of Court has issued an order taxing costs, and Plaintiff has filed a 20 motion in opposition to retax costs (detailing his financial circumstances), this Court will 21 have the full complement of papers on which to decide the issue.1 At that time, the Court 22 will evaluate the factors which augur for or against an award of costs. Escriba v. Foster 23 24 1 Unfortunately, Mr. Raiser continues to make repeated and unsupported contentions that 25 there is a conspiracy against him perpetuated by court staff. These pronouncements do 26 not advance his legal position in this litigation and have the effect of diluting the legal arguments that Mr. Raiser seeks to advance. 27 1 || Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247-48 (9th Cir. 2014)).? Thus, for the reasons 2 || detailed above, Plaintiff's Application for an Order Reconsidering and Vacating ECF No. 3 is DENIED. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to the bill of costs, including details of 4 || Plaintiffs indigence and monthly income if any, in accordance with the Court’s 5 || Amended Schedule Regarding Bill of Costs, ECF No. 213. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 13, 2021 2 Ss 8 Hon. athe Coke 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 || Ma 23 The losing party must show why costs should not be awarded. Save Our Valley, 335 24 || F.3d at 944-45. “Appropriate reasons for denying costs include: (1) the substantial public 95 importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiffs limited financial resources, and 26 ||(5) the economic disparity between the parties.” Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1087 (9th Cir. 2016) 28 19-cv-00751-GPC