Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01836/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01836-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)

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

AARON RAISER,

Plaintiff,

v.

HON. TIMOTHY CASSERLY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

PENDING EX PARTE MOTIONS

(ECF Nos. 28, 34, 40, 50, 51)

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Aaron Raiser’s Ex Parte Motions (A) for an 

Order Declaring ECF Access Policies and Local Rule 7.1 Unconstitutional (ECF No. 28); 

(B) for an Order Declaring Local Rule 7.1 Page Limit Unconstitutional (ECF No. 34); 

(C) for Order of Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 40); (D) for an Order (1) That Only 

Presiding Judge Personally Read All Pending and Future Applications, Motions and 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Personally Draft The Orders Thereon With 

No Staff Input; (2) That Certain Administrative Orders Be Entered To Prevent Further Bias 

and Disruption To Proceedings And Case Transferred To Another Judge; (3) For Hearing 

To Get Out in the Open What Is Happening In This Case From a Due 

Process/Administrative Perspective and Talk About How Plaintiff Can Get a Fair 

Adjudication With Proper Legal Analysis; (4) To Declare Present System of Delegation to 

Court Staff and Interns Plaintiff’s Cases as Unconstitutional; (5) To Declare Present 

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 57 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)

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

System of Reliance on Case Summaries Unconstitutional; (6) That Only the Presiding 

Judge in This Case Read This Ex Parte Application and Supporting Memorandum of Points 

and Authorities, Supporting Cites and Draft the Order Thereon; and (7) To Declare 

Allowing Staff To Search PACER (including Internal PACER) For Plaintiff’s Cases 

Unconstitutional (ECF Nos. 50, 51).

1

Including the five ex parte motions presently before the Court, Plaintiff has now 

filed fourteen ex parte motions during this litigation. “In our adversary system, ex parte

motions are disfavored.” Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080, 1091 (2018); accord United 

States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 1987)). Consequently, “opportunities 

for legitimate ex parte applications are extremely limited.” Maxson v. Mosaic Sales Sols. 

U.S. Operating Co., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-02116-APG, 2015 WL 4661981, at *1 (D. Nev. 

July 29, 2015) (quoting In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal.

1989)). A proper ex parte motion must “address . . . why the regular noticed motion 

procedures must be bypassed,” i.e., “it must show why the moving party should be allowed 

to go to the head of the line in front of all other litigants and receive special treatment.” 

Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). This 

requires the moving party to “show that the moving party’s cause will be irreparably 

prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion 

procedures” and “that the moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires 

ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Id.

None of Plaintiff’s pending ex parte motions meet these requirements. See generally 

ECF Nos. 28, 34, 40, 50, 51. Plaintiff makes generalized arguments that he will suffer 

irreparable harm because there are other motions pending and his case could be dismissed. 

See, e.g., ECF Nos. 28 at 2, 34 at 2, 40 at 2, 50 at 2, 51 at 2. Those assertions, however, 

do not warrant ex parte relief. Consequently, “[t]he pending motions are not properly 

 

1 Plaintiff also filed ex parte motions for an Order (1) For Extension of Time to Serve / Re-Serve Summons 

and Complaint on Non-Appearing Defendants; and (2) Allowing Discovery to Determine Doe Defendant 

Identity (ECF Nos. 43, 44). The Court will address those requests in a separate Order. 

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 57 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)

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

brought in an ex parte manner.” See Maxson, 2015 WL 4661981, at *2. “While the Court 

liberally construes the filings of pro se litigants, pro se litigants are not relieved from 

following applicable rules of procedure, including the Local Rule requiring a showing of 

compelling reasons for seeking relief on an ex parte basis.” Id. (citing Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 

F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). “As a 

result, the Court will not address the substance of the motions and they are hereby

DENIED. To the extent Plaintiff continues to seek the relief requested, [he] must file 

the motions in accordance with the rules of this Court and provide notice of them to 

Defendant[s’] counsel.” See id. (emphasis in original).

Further, “the Court has outlined above the extremely limited circumstances in which 

the filing of an ex parte request is proper. The Court expects Plaintiff to refrain in the 

future from filing ex parte requests when the appropriate circumstances do not exist for 

such a filing.” See id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 57 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3