ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

On August 12, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to stay, motion for terminating sanctions, and a motion for appointment of counsel.1 ECF No. 37. Plaintiff noticed his motions for hearing the following day in violation of this court's local rules. Id.; see E.D. Cal. L.R. 230. On August 13, 2014, the court issued a minute order, directing plaintiff to re-notice his motions for hearing in compliance with the court's local rules. ECF No. 38.

On August 14, 2014, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for an order shortening time. ECF No. 39. In this motion, plaintiff set his August 12, 2014 motions for hearing on September 17, 2014, but requested that the court hear the matter as soon as possible. Id. at 1. The motion to shorten time addressed the merits of plaintiff's claims and failed to provide any justification for why the matter should be heard on an earlier date. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 144(e) ("Ex parte applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order and for the failure of counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in the action."). Accordingly, the motion was denied.

On August 27, plaintiff filed another motion for an order shortening time. ECF No. 43. This request again fails to comply with the court's local rules. Plaintiff does not explain why he did not obtain a stipulation for an order to shorten time, nor does he provide an affidavit showing a satisfactory explanation for the need to shorten time. Accordingly, plaintiff's August 27, 2014 ex parte motion is denied, and his motion to stay, motion for terminating sanctions, and motion for appointment of counsel will be heard on September 17, 2014.