Emert v. San Diego Superior Court
3:24-cv-00924
| S.D. Cal. | May 31, 2024Background
- Robert Emert, proceeding pro se, sought injunctive relief (TRO, preliminary and permanent injunction) against the San Diego Superior Court to allow remote participation in court proceedings.
- Emert filed the action and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on the same day.
- The only document filed with the court was the TRO request; no formal complaint was submitted.
- The TRO specifically addressed a May 28, 2024 hearing, for which remote accommodations had been denied.
- The court found deficiencies in both the IFP application (wrong form used, insufficient detail) and the TRO request (lack of operative complaint, no proof of notice, mootness based on completed hearing).
- The action was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Emert to refile with proper documentation and procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for IFP | Emert unable to pay filing fees, filed short form | Not specified | Denied, improper form and insufficient detail |
| TRO/Equitable Relief Without Complaint | Sought injunction for remote court access | Not specified | Denied, no underlying complaint to assess claims |
| Notice for TRO | No mention of notice | Not specified | Denied, insufficient proof of notice and no exigency justification |
| Mootness of TRO | Wanted remote access for May 28 hearing | not specified | Denied, hearing already occurred, request moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining requirements for proceeding in forma pauperis)
- Escobedo v. Applebee’s, 787 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2015) (detailing standard for IFP affidavits)
- United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981) (requiring particularity in statements of poverty for IFP)
- LA All. for Human Rights v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 14 F.4th 947 (9th Cir. 2021) (injunctive relief can only be based on pled claims)
- Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2015) (preliminary injunctions require nexus to claims in complaint)
- Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (standards for issuing ex parte TROs)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (describing mootness doctrine for federal cases)