Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 6, 2025

Hazari v. County of Santa Clara

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:19-cv-04392
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Cyrus Hazari v. County of Santa Clara, Judge Freeman denied motions to disqualify her and change venue, while allowing 14 days to amend.

Who this affects

Cyrus Hazari, who represented himself, must file an amended complaint within 14 days or the case will be dismissed with prejudice. The defendants remain parties to the case, but the order denies Hazari’s requests to disqualify the judge and change venue.

What happened

Cyrus Hazari v. County of Santa Clara concerns Hazari’s request to remove the judge from the case and move the case to the Northern District of New York. Hazari argued that the judge’s rulings showed bias and had harmed him. He represented himself.

The court explained that disagreement with a judge’s rulings is not enough to require disqualification. It also found that Hazari had not shown that the case could have been filed in the proposed New York district or another district, so a venue change was not appropriate.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied both motions. The court gave Hazari 14 days to file an amended complaint, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal with prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hazari v. County of Santa Clara · No. 5:19-cv-04392
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Nov. 6, 2025

Background

Cyrus Hazari brought this action against the County of Santa Clara and other defendants in 2019. The opinion states that his complaint asserted 18 claims, including claims labeled “EQUAL PROTECTION,” “FRAUD,” and “VANDALISM.” He alleged that the County and other defendants conspired to deny him a residential building permit and harass him.

Hazari filed the combined motion addressed in this order while representing himself. The motion asked the judge to disqualify herself and asked the court to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

The court’s background discussion states that it had previously denied a motion to disqualify, dismissed Hazari’s complaint for failure to state a claim, and allowed him additional time to amend. Rather than filing an amended complaint by the extended deadline, Hazari filed the present motion. The court had also denied defendants’ request to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute and had extended the amendment deadline.

Disqualification request

Federal law requires a judge to disqualify herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when she has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. The party seeking disqualification bears a substantial burden because federal judges are presumed to be impartial.

Hazari argued that the judge had “tortured,” coerced, and intimidated him and had acted with an intent to cause him serious pain and suffering. The court determined that these arguments amounted to disagreement with the court’s orders. It reiterated that disagreement with a ruling is not a basis for disqualification and concluded that disqualification was not appropriate.

Venue request

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice if the case could have been brought in the proposed district. The court found that Hazari had not established that this action could have been brought in the Northern District of New York or any other district. It therefore found transfer of venue inappropriate.

Ruling and next step

The court denied the combined motion to disqualify and change venue. It also granted Hazari a limited period to file an amended complaint: 14 days from the date of the order. The court stated that it would not extend that deadline again without a showing of good cause and that failure to file an amended pleading would result in dismissal with prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.