Raiser v. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 20-CV-1490 TWR (AGS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. RENEWED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY 14 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT RESTRAINING ORDER OR COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 15 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. (ECF No. 54) 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aaron Riser’s Renewed “Emergency” Ex 20 Parte Application for Order (“Renewed Ex Parte App.,” ECF No. 54). The Court denied 21 Plaintiff’s original Ex Parte Application, ECF No. 52, on the grounds that Plaintiff had 22 failed to establish his entitlement to ex parte relief and therefore directed Plaintiff to file a 23 properly noticed motion. (See ECF No. 53 at 2.) The Court also admonished Plaintiff not 24 to file further ex parte requests unless merited under the very limited circumstances for 25 seeking such relief. (See id. at 2–3.) Rather than comply with the Court’s directives and 26 obtain a hearing date, Plaintiff filed the instant Renewed Ex Parte Application, in which 27 he once again attempts to justify his entitlement to ex parte relief. (See Renewed Ex Parte 28 App. at 5–8.) 1 Again, Plaintiff’s request for ex parte relief is improper. Not only has Plaintiff failed 2 to establish his entitlement to ex parte relief, (see generally ECF No. 53), but he also has 3 failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. First, “[i]t is so 4 well settled as not to require citation of authority that the usual function of a preliminary 5 injunction is to preserve the status quo ante litem pending a determination of the action on 6 the merits.” Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 1963). 7 Consequently, “it is not usually proper to grant the moving party the full relief to which he 8 might be entitled if successful at the conclusion of a trial.” Id. Such is the case here, where 9 the declarations Plaintiff seeks through the instant Renewed Ex Parte Application are the 10 very declarations that he seeks through his operative Third Amended Complaint. 11 (Compare, e.g., ECF No. 50 (“TAC”) ¶¶ 132, 153, 156, 158–59, 171–72, 182–83, 204, 12 207, 213–14, 217, 268, with Renewed Ex Parte App. at 65–77.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 13 Renewed Ex Parte Application is appropriately denied. 14 Further, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely 15 to succeed on the merits.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 16 As the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo previously informed Plaintiff when dismissing 17 as frivolous a substantially similar action, “[t]his Court knows of no authority for the 18 proposition that one district judge can order another district judge to handle a particular 19 case in a particular manner.” Raiser v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Cal., No. 19CV1571- 20 CAB-WVG, 2019 WL 4110608, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2019). “Moreover, the relief 21 Plaintiff seeks is unrealistic and frivolous, as judicial staff work for and at the direction of 22 the judges.” Id. “Finally, judges and their staff are absolutely immune from suit when 23 performing judicial responsibilities.” Id. (citing In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th 24 Cir.), as amended (Sept. 6, 2002); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 25 1986); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 26 1987); Samuel v. Michaud, 980 F.Supp.1381, 1403 (D. Idaho 1996)). As in Plaintiff’s prior 27 case, Plaintiff here sues judges and their staff—who are immune from suit—and seeks to 28 have the undersigned order other judges in this District and from the United States Court 1 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to administer their cases in a particular manner. (See 2 || generally TAC.) Because Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits of these claims for 3 reasons outlined by Judge Bencivengo, Plaintiff has not established that he is entitled 4 || to preliminary injunctive relief on the merits. 5 For all these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Renewed Ex Parte Application 6 ||(ECF No. 54). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: October 13, 2021 : : Tan \Qbn— □ Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28