Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02810/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02810-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVELHIN IVONNEE RODGERS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-CV-2810-H-BGS

ORDER RE EX PARTE

COMMUNICATION AND

INAPPROPRIATE

COMMUNICATION

v.

JOSEPH, Officer; FRANK MCCOY,

Chief of Police for the City of Oceanside;

BEVERLY ALEXANDER, Chief of

Police Secretary; RAY BELCHER, Police

Captain; RON HARDY, Sergeant; and

STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF

OCEANSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

On February 6, 2013, the Court issued an order concluding “that Defendants’

motion is capable of resolution without oral argument and therefore vacates the

hearing scheduled for February 11, 2013" (Doc. No. 11), pursuant to Local Civil

Rule 7.1.d.1. The rule provides that a “judge may, in the judge's discretion, decide a

motion without oral argument.” In the same order, the Court granted the Defendants’

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and allowed the Plaintiff to

“file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of this order to cure the

deficiencies in her first amended complaint, if she can do.” (Doc. No. 11). All nonregistered users of Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) were served

via United States mail service and all registered users of CM/ECF were served

-1-

Case 3:12-cv-02810-H-BGS Document 12 Filed 02/13/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

electronically. Since this matter had been submitted under Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the

motion hearing was not on the Court’s February 11, 2013 calendar. The Court notes

that the calendar is posted publicly on the Court’s website.

On February 11, 2013, a woman, later identified to the Court as the Plaintiff in

this matter, attended the Court’s criminal calendar. The Courtroom Deputy Clerk

provided a copy of the February 6, 2013 order submitting the motion under Local

Rule 7.1.d.1 to the Plaintiff. A Deputy United States Marshal also advised the

Plaintiff that this matter was not on calendar, since this matter had been taken under

submission under Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1. 

Local Civil Rule 83.9 prohibits ex parte communication with the judge and 

provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, attorneys or parties to any

action or proceeding must refrain from writing letters to the judge, or otherwise

communicating with the judge unless opposing counsel is present.” Since the Court

submitted the matter under Local Rule 7.1.d.1, opposing counsel was not present in

court on February 11, 2013.

Later that afternoon in a criminal proceeding, an individual from the gallery 

interrupted criminal defense counsel and attempted to communicate with the Court

ex parte.1

 The Court requested the deputy marshal to remove the individual from the

courtroom. At the time of the interruption, the Court was discussing potential access

to the victim-witness with the prosecutors and criminal defense counsel in the

criminal matter. The Court reasonably inferred that the interrupting individual might

have a connection to the criminal matter and inquired of counsel if the interrupting

individual had any connection to the criminal matter. Criminal defense counsel

indicated to the Court that he was unaware of the interrupting individual’s identity.

The Court was informed that the interrupting individual was the Plaintiff in this civil

1

 The Plaintiff interrupted a motion hearing in criminal case USA v. Fonseca,

case no. 12-CR-1434-H.

-2-

Case 3:12-cv-02810-H-BGS Document 12 Filed 02/13/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

matter. After the Plaintiff was escorted out of the courtroom, the Court proceeded

with the criminal case. Thereafter, the Plaintiff telephonically contacted chambers

regarding this case. Chambers informed the Plaintiff that ex parte communication

about the merits of a case is prohibited. See Local Rule 83.9.

The deputy marshal later informed the Court that the Plaintiff had sent an

inappropriate email to a civil clerk of the U.S. Marshal’s Office on February 3, 2013.

The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s email to the civil clerk and concludes that the

communication is inappropriate. 

The Court orders the Plaintiff to refrain from any ex parte communication

with the Court and to refrain from disrupting any proceedings in court. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same

rules of procedure that govern other litigants."); see also Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S.

225, 231 (2004) ("District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to

pro se litigants."). The Plaintiff is on notice that any violation of the Court’s order or

the Local Rules may result in sanctions, contempt of court, and any appropriate

court action, including dismissal of her action. The Court reminds the Plaintiff that

she may file an amended complaint within thirty days from the February 6, 2013

order to cure the deficiencies in her first amended complaint, if she can do.

Finally, the Court will provide a copy of this order and the Plaintiff’s

inappropriate email to Chief Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz. The Court orders the

inappropriate email be filed under seal and accessible only by the Court, absent

further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 13, 2013

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-

Case 3:12-cv-02810-H-BGS Document 12 Filed 02/13/13 Page 3 of 3