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