Hazari v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Cyrus Hazari, representing himself, filed the action on July 31, 2019, against the County of Santa Clara and other individual defendants. He alleged that the defendants conspired to deny him a residential building permit and more broadly harassed him personally.

The case was repeatedly delayed. The court granted multiple stays based on Hazari’s medical condition, including a stay lasting more than four and a half years. In March 2025, after defendants opposed another request to extend the stay, the court denied the request, finding that Hazari’s rapid and lengthy filings showed that his documented disabilities did not prevent him from prosecuting the case.

On July 1, 2025, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint but allowed Hazari to amend. The court gave him 90 days to file an amended complaint and warned that failing to do so by October 1, 2025, would result in dismissal of the deficient claims with prejudice. Hazari did not file an amended complaint. Instead, he filed a preliminary-injunction motion.

The court later gave Hazari additional opportunities to amend, including a 14-day extension on November 6, 2025. It warned that the deadline would not be extended again absent good cause and that failure to file a complaint complying with the court’s rules by November 20 would lead to dismissal. Hazari again did not file the required amended complaint. He instead filed objections, a response to the dismissal motion, and other documents, including a filing the court viewed as a draft complaint for a separate action rather than the required amended complaint.

Reconsideration arguments

The court considered Hazari’s objection to the November 6 order as a motion for reconsideration. Hazari appeared to argue that requiring him to prosecute the case despite his medical disabilities amounted to torture and that rulings favoring defendants showed that the judge was biased.

The court rejected those arguments. It stated that requiring a plaintiff to prosecute an action that the plaintiff initiated does not constitute torture and that federal courts have authority to manage their dockets. The court also stated that disagreement with prior rulings does not establish judicial bias. The opinion explains that Hazari had not presented a sufficient factual basis for reconsideration.

Failure-to-prosecute ruling

The defendants’ administrative motion sought dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). That rule permits involuntary dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court rules or an order.

The court applied five factors: the public interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to defendants, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and whether less severe sanctions were available. The court found that four factors strongly favored dismissal. Hazari’s inaction had stalled the case for more than six years; his failure to file the amended complaint interfered with docket management; defendants would be prejudiced by continued delay; and the court saw little point in imposing less severe sanctions because Hazari had repeatedly failed to follow its orders despite warnings and extensions. The policy favoring decisions on the merits did not favor dismissal.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ administrative motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. It ordered that the action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.