Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02925/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02925-0/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 TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

DISMISSAL 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. In light of the Judge Trumbull’s extension of the

discovery cut-off date, and the uncertainty with respect to the schedule, the Court ordered offcalendar Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as premature. (See Docket Item No. 132.) 

Case 5:04-cv-02925-JW Document 134 Filed 02/29/08 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

The Court stated that Defendants may refile and renotice their motion once the additional discovery

is completed.

Since March 14, 2007, neither party has taken any action in this case. However, it is

Plaintiff’s duty to prosecute his case. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders the parties to appear in

Courtroom No. 8, 4th Floor, United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose,

California on March 17, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. to show cause, if any, why the case should not be

dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for lack of prosecution. On or before March 10, 2008,

the parties shall file a certification in response to the Order to Show Cause. The statement shall set

forth the status of the litigation and the reason no action has been taken for almost a year.

If no certification is filed, the March 17, 2008 hearing will be vacated automatically and the

case will be dismissed. Failure to comply with any part of this Order will be deemed sufficient

grounds to dismiss this action.

Dated: February 29, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02925-JW Document 134 Filed 02/29/08 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: February 29, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02925-JW Document 134 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 3