Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01836/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01836-0/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 (1) GRANTING MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

SERVE DEFENDANTS, AND 

(2) DENYING REQUEST FOR 

DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE DOE 

DEFENDANT IDENTITY

(ECF Nos. 43, 44)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for 

Extension of Time to Serve/Re-Serve Summons and Complaint on Non-Appearing 

Defendants (ECF No. 43), and Plaintiff’s Amended Ex Parte Application for (1) Extension 

of Time to Serve/Re-Serve Summons and Complaint on Non-Appearing Defendants, and 

(2) Allowing Discovery to Determine Doe Defendant Identity (“Mot.,” ECF No. 44).1 The 

Court will consider Plaintiff’s second Motion and addresses each of Plaintiff’s requests in 

turn. 

 

1 Because Plaintiff seeks the same relief in both motions, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s first 

Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No 43). 

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 56 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

First, Plaintiff requests the Court extend the time for him to serve Defendants Chief 

Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Administrative Presiding Justice Judith McConnell, and 

Associate Justices Patricia D. Benke, Richard D. Huffman, and Terry B. O’Rourke

(together, the “Judicial Defendants”). Id. at 4. Plaintiff contends that he mistakenly served 

the Complaint at the California Attorney General’s Office in San Diego, California, 

because he believed they would accept service on behalf of the Judicial Defendants. Id. at 

3–4. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as it pertains to 

extending time for service.

2

 

Second, Plaintiff requests the Court allow discovery so that he may ascertain the 

identity of the Doe Defendants. Plaintiff asserts that the Doe Defendants are limited to 

“judges’s law clerks and/or staff” involved in “the initial destruction of the [second] notice 

of appeal and subsequent failure to forward the . . . [second] notice of appeal . . . .” Mot. 

at 8. According to Plaintiff, their identity will not be “super difficult to discover.” Id. 

Plaintiff contends that he “assumed he would be allowed to conduct discovery” regarding 

the identities of the Doe Defendants “as the case proceeded” because he brought viable 

claims against Defendant Romo. Id. at 7–8. 

Rule 26(d) states that a party may not seek “discovery from any source” before the 

Rule 26(f) conference, unless the Court allows early discovery, or the parties agree to it. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). When a party seeks Court permission for early discovery, that 

party must show “good cause.” MedImpact Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings, Inc., 

No. 19cv1865-GPC-LL, 2019 WL 610554, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2019). In situations 

such as this where a plaintiff seeks discovery to uncover the identity of an unknown

defendant, “the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the 

unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or 

 

2

In his Motion, Plaintiff states he does not seek an extension of time to serve Defendants Gavin Newsom 

or Michael Cohen and that “they are effectively dismissed without prejudice.” Mot. at 5. The Court 

considers this a voluntary dismissal of these Defendants and therefore DISMISSES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Gavin Newsom and Michael Cohen. 

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 56 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

that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 

637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for conducting 

discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. Plaintiff seems to assert that like Defendant 

Romo, the Doe Defendants were court clerks involved in the handling of Plaintiff’s 

October 2015 appeals. Mot. at 7–9. The Court finds that because the Doe Defendants 

would be similarly situated to Defendant Romo, the reasoning of the previous Order 

dismissing Defendant Romo would apply to the Doe Defendants as well. It is therefore 

clear to the Court that “the [C]omplaint would be dismissed on other grounds” and that 

discovery to determine the identities of the Doe Defendants is not warranted. See Gillespie, 

629 F.2d at 642. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as it pertains to seeking early 

discovery. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

Plaintiff’s Motion. Specifically, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion as it pertains to 

extending time for service and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion as it pertains to seeking early 

discovery. Plaintiff SHALL SERVE the Judicial Defendants and file appropriate proof of 

service with the Court by March 6, 2020. Failure to properly serve Defendants by this 

time may result in this case being dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01836-JLS-AHG Document 56 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3