Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02925/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02925-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Payam Ghaderi,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Roxy Hariri, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-02925 JW 

ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING RE:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Payam Ghaderi (“Plaintiff”), in pro se, brings this action against Santa Clara Deputy District

Attorney Roxy Hariri and Hariri’s unnamed supervisor (“Defendants”), for alleged violations of 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 20, 2006, the parties attended a Settlement Conference, but did not

settle. (See Docket Item No. 107.) On December 28, 2006, Defendants filed their Motion for

Summary Judgment and noticed it for a hearing on February 5, 2007. (See Docket Item No. 109.) 

On its own motion, the Court continued the hearing to March 19, 2007. (See Docket Item No. 118.)

However, on March 13, 2007, Magistrate Judge Trumbull issued an Order Granting

Defendant Roxy Hariri’s Motion to Withdraw Admissions. (See Docket Item No. 131.) Among

other things, Judge Trumbull granted Plaintiff limited relief from the discovery cut-off deadline to

allow Plaintiff time to depose Defendant Hariri and non-party witness Mendoza. The order did not

specify a deadline for these additional depositions but directed that they be completed “without

undue delay.” In light of Judge Trumbull’s extension of the discovery cut-off date, and the

uncertainty with respect to the schedule, the Court ordered off-calendar Defendants’ Motion for

Case 5:04-cv-02925-JW Document 139 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

Summary Judgment as premature. (See Docket Item No. 132.) The Court stated that Defendants

may refile and renotice their motion once the additional discovery is completed.

Since no action had been taken by either party since March 14, 2007, the Court, sua sponte,

issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. (See Docket Item No. 134.) 

The Court conducted a hearing on March 17, 2008. At the hearing and in his written response to the

order, Plaintiff alleged judicial misconduct by the Court in relation to the continuance of the hearing

on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Certification in Response to the Order to Show

Cause at 4-5, hereafter, “Response,” Docket Item No. 135.) Plaintiff stated that he had filed a

motion to disqualify the Court based on bias and conflict of interests. (Response at 8.) Initially,

Plaintiff represented that he would not complete discovery until the motion for disqualification was

adjudicated. (Id.) However, at the hearing, Plaintiff represented that he would complete discovery

within sixty days.

In light of Plaintiff’s representations, the Court orders as follows:

(1) The Court sets April 21, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. for a hearing on Plaintiff’s anticipated

motion to disqualify the Court. At the hearing, Plaintiff indicated that he had filed

the motion; however, as of today’s date, there is no such filing on the docket. Rather,

Plaintiff has only stated in his Response to the Order to Show Cause that he intends

to file the motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file this motion in accordance with the

Civil Local Rules of Court.

(2) Plaintiff shall complete the depositions previously allowed by Judge Trumbull on or

before May 19, 2008.

(3) The parties shall appear on June 23, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. for a Preliminary Pretrial

Conference. In accordance with the Civil Local Rules, the parties shall meet and

confer and submit a Joint a Pretrial Conference Statement ten on or before June 13,

2008.

Dated: March 18, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02925-JW Document 139 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

John Lewis Winchester john.winchester@cco.sccgov.org

Michael L. Rossi michael.rossi@cco.co.scl.ca.us

Paul T. Hammerness paul.hammerness@doj.ca.gov

Payam Ghaderi

Post Office Box 9045

San Jose, CA 95157

Dated: March 18, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02925-JW Document 139 Filed 03/18/08 Page 3 of 3