Ore v. Dorsey

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
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTOPHER P. ORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEKAY RAMON DORSEY,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-00580-AMO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RETURN OF PROPERTY
Re: Dkt. No. 7
Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher P. Ore’s motion for return of property pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). Having reviewed Ore’s motion, as well as the relevant
legal authority, the Court DENIES the motion for the following reasons.
Ore filed suit against Supervisory Deputy United States Marshal Tekay Ramon Dorsey on
January 20, 2026. See Dkt. No. 1. He alleges that Dorsey unlawfully detained and interrogated
him and deprived him of his property. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On January 26, 2026, Ore filed an ex parte
motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Dkt. No. 3. On January 27, 2026, the Court
denied Ore’s TRO without prejudice because Ore did not give notice to Dorsey nor provide any
reasons why it should not be required. Dkt. No. 6.
On February 3, 2026, Ore filed the instant motion. Ore moves the Court for “immediate
return of [his] personal property unlawfully seized and retained by federal officers[.]” Dkt. No. 7
at 2. But Ore still has not served Dorsey in this action. Indeed, Ore has yet to file a proposed
summons. Because Dorsey has not been served and appeared, he has not received notice of Ore’s
motion through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system. Neither did Ore file a proof of service
indicating that Dorsey was served in a different way. See Civil L.R. 5-5(a)(2) (requiring
“[c]ertificate of service stating the date, place, and manner of service, and the name, street address,
Case 3:26-cv-00580-AMO Document 8 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
Northern District of California
or electronic address of each person served, certified by the person who made service, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1746” unless a party is served via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system). A party
may file a motion without notice to an opposing party “only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule,
or Standing Order authorizes ex parte filing. The motion must include a citation to the statute,
rule, or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought.” Civil L.R.
7-10. Because Ore’s motion does not comply with this rule, it is DENIED.
The Court cautions Ore that any further motions filed with the Court will be similarly
denied unless Ore complies with the Civil Local Rules, as well as the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2026
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00580-AMO Document 8 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 2