United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER
THAT PLAINTIFF AARON RAISER SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE
REQUIRED TO SEEK COURT PERMISSION BEFORE NAMING AS A
DEFENDANT ANY JUDGE OR COURT STAFF OF ANY COURT AND BEFORE
MOVING TO RECUSE ANY JUDGE PRESIDING OVER A CASE TO WHICH
PLAINTIFF IS A PARTY OR TO WHOM A MOTION TO RECUSE SUCH A
JUDGE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED
Dale
S. Fischer United States District Judge.
The
Court has described some of the history of Plaintiff Aaron
Raiser's litigation in this and other courts in its
September 9, 2019 Order Declining to Disqualify as Presiding
Judge (9/9/19 Order). See Dkt. 67. As is apparent
from the Attachment to that Order (9/9/19 Attachment) and the
docket of the Central District, Mr. Raiser has made a habit
of naming and moving to recuse[1] judges of this district
(including a judge from another district appointed by the
Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit to preside over a matter in
this district). Id.[2]
Due in
part to this practice, on January 3, 2018, the Honorable R.
Gary Klausner issued his Order re: Fifth Motion for Recusal,
noting that “Plaintiff's repeated filings of
motions for recusal, each time adding the judge who last
handled his request, demonstrate patently frivolous and
vexatious conduct.” See Aaron Raiser v. City of
Murrieta, EDCV 17-1824 RGK (RAO) (Murrieta I),
Dkt. 51. Judge Klausner noted that under the All Writs Act,
28 U.S.C. 1651(a), “district courts have the inherent
power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious
litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of
litigation.” Murrieta I, Dkt. 51, citing
Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197
(9th Cir. 1999) and DeLong v. Hennessey,
912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990)(“There
is strong precedent establishing the inherent power of
federal courts to regulate the activities of abusive
litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under
appropriate circumstances.”). As Judge Klausner also
noted, such orders should be issued only where the court has
provided the litigant with notice of the proposed order, (2)
the court has established an adequate record of review, (3)
the court has made a substantive finding of frivolousness,
and (4) the proposed order is narrowly tailored.
DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147-49.
Because
of Mr. Raiser's vexatious conduct, Judge Klausner gave
notice to Mr. Raiser and ordered him to show cause in writing
why the Court should not immediately enter a pre-filing order
restricting any further motions to recuse to be filed without
prior approval of the Court. Murrieta I, Dkt. 51.
Mr.
Raiser simply responded with his oft-repeated theme that
“corruption in this court, bias, lack of ethics etc.
doom[] Plaintiff's cases, ” that none of the judges
of the court actually rule on the matters before them, that
staff with a vendetta against him engage in a conspiracy to
“bypass judges, enter illegitimate orders denying
recusal, ” and that his “120 page declaration
show[s] the most massive undertaking of corruption ever to
exist in the federal courts.” See Murrieta I,
Dkt. 52. The next day, Mr. Raiser withdrew his response and
asked to increase the page limit for a new response to be
submitted in the future. Murrieta I, Dkt. 54. The
request was denied. Murrieta I, Dkt. 55. Mr. Raiser
filed a new response exceeding 110 pages (including
attachments) on January 10, 2018, complaining about the
Court's process for handling recusal motions and drawing
improper conclusions about how assignments concerning his
motions to recuse were made and orders
prepared.[3] Murrieta I, Dkt. 57.
After
reviewing Mr. Raiser's response, Judge Klausner found
that “a prefiling order is warranted to address
Plaintiff's vexatious filing of motions to recuse,
” and ordered that prior to filing any further such
motions in the case, Mr. Raiser was required to obtain
permission from the Court. Murrieta I, Dkt.
58.[4]
Judge
Klausner's Order pertained only to that now-dismissed
case, but Mr. Raiser has not been deterred from continuing to
attempt to recuse judges of this Court. As he has done
before, see 9/9/19 Attachment, Mr. Raiser continues
to name individual judges as defendants, expecting that those
judges will then recuse themselves from hearing those cases.
After
his voluntary dismissal of his action against the City of
Murrieta in Murrieta I, Mr. Raiser filed this action
against the City of Murrieta. Mr. Raiser admits that this
action was “originally filed” in Murrieta
I. Dkt. 55 at 4. In addition to the City of Murrieta,
however, Mr. Raiser now named Judge Klausner as a defendant.
He also named the magistrate judge assigned to Murrieta
I, the Honorable Rozella Oliver. This case was initially
assigned to the Honorable Manual Real. Although Mr. Raiser
filed a Notice of Related Case(s) indicating (incorrectly)
that there were no related cases, Dkt. 5, an Order re
Transfer Pursuant to General Order 16-05 (Related Case) was
prepared. Because Judge Klausner was named as a defendant, he
declined to accept the transfer. Dkt. 6. When Judge Real
dismissed the action against Judge Klausner and Magistrate
Judge Oliver for lack of prosecution, Mr. Raiser amended his
complaint and again named Judge Klausner as well as Judge
Real and all other judges who had previously ruled on his
various motions to recuse in earlier cases. Dkt. 21. This
case was then assigned to this Court.
The
claims against the judges asserted that the staff of the
judges have conspired with the staff of the Central District
and the staff of the Ninth Circuit “in what is alleged
to be the greatest undertaking of corruption ever to exist in
the federal court since 1789.” Dkt. 21 at 2. The
alleged conspiracy has as its asserted purpose “to
always defeat Plaintiff's cases which he brings and no
matter who the defendant is . . . . They'll make it look
good, but anyone scrutinizing their rulings quickly see [sic]
the injustice and what is taking place.” Dkt. 21 at 5.
The “judicial defendants” appear to be defendants
only as to the nineteenth cause of action by which Mr. Raiser
seeks to enjoin them from “taking further actions to
further the conspiracy to obstruct justice for Plaintiff or
taking further actions to adjudicate in any manner
Plaintiff's court cases, ” and ordering that they
“cease all work on Plaintiff's cases now and in the
future.” Dkt. 21 at 28.
Mr.
Raiser had asserted similar claims against Central District
judges and court staff at least as early as 2012 in Aaron
Raiser v. Yvette Lois, EDCV 12-0045 SMM. There, in a
thorough and well-reasoned order, the presiding
judge[5] explained why the action must be dismissed
with prejudice against the judges and court staff. Because
the judicial defendants in this case were similarly entitled
to immunity, on July 8, 2019 this Court dismissed the claims
against them sua sponte. Dkt. 48.
On
August 7, 2019, Mr. Raiser filed a complaint in Aaron
Raiser v. City of Temecula, EDCV 19-1465 DSF (KKx)
(Temecula Action).[6] Despite having been advise at least twice
that such claims were frivolous, in that action, Mr. Raiser
also names “All Judges in the Western and Eastern
Divisions of this Court.”[7]Temecula Action, Temecula Action,
Dkt. 1 at 1. Mr. Raiser alleges that, “[a]s to the
court defendants, there is an underworld court system in this
court where people get jobs working in the court, are given
judge's electronic signatures, and they are now the
judges in Plaintiff's cases. . . . [C]ourt staff deceive
the judges concerning Plaintiff's cases and unjust
outcomes result. [In addition, c]ourt staff have also
conspired with Susan Gelmis and staff at the Ninth Circuit
such that Plaintiff has NO right to appeal anything from this
court.” Temecula Action, Dkt. 1 at 28. Mr. Raiser
claims the judges abdicate their duties to court staff,
unconstitutionally decide cases based on what staff draft,
and “allow staff who work on Plaintiff's cases
access to PACER which simply biases the staff beyond
repair.” Temecula Action, Dkt. 1 at 29. In short, Mr.
Raiser again complains about the alleged manner in which the
judges of this district perform their constitutional
functions.
On
August 28, 2019, Mr. Raiser moved to recuse all judges of the
Western and Eastern divisions. Temecula Action at Dkt. 8. The
motion was randomly assigned to a judge sitting in the
Southern Division, who denied the motion. As previously
stated, Mr. Raiser's motion for reconsideration was also
denied.
Mr.
Raiser remains undaunted by the denials of his motions to
recuse and the dismissal of his frivolous claims against
judges and staff of the Central District.[8] These filings are
frivolous and intended to delay the litigation and vex and
annoy judges and staff. Because of Mr. Raiser's vexatious
conduct, the Court orders him to show cause in writing why
the Court should not immediately enter a prefiling order
prohibiting him from filing any further motions to recuse and
prohibiting him from filing any suits against any judge or
member of the staff of the Central District - alone - or with
...