In re: Farahani

Filing 13

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge James Ware on May 12, 2009. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 In re: Fred Farmahin Farahani, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 08-05786 JW ORDER OF DISMISSAL / On December 30, 2008, Petitioner in pro se, filed a "Motion for Restraining Order Terminating Automatic Stay," which was denied by Judge Whyte, as the court could not discern a basis upon which to grant relief. (See Docket Item Nos. 1 and 4.) On March 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed a handwritten motion contending that he is disabled due to a stroke and is unable to do the work required to prosecute this action. (See Docket Item No. 9.) The Court construed the letter as a motion for reconsideration of Judge Whyte's December 30, 2008 Order, and denied the motion, as it did not present any new facts or law for the Court's reconsideration. (See Order Denying Ex Parte Application, hereafter, "April 10 Order," Docket Item No. 10.) Included in the April 10 Order was an Order to Show Cause to provide the Court with a basis as to why it should not dismiss the case, as the Complaint1 had been filed three months prior without any service of process upon any defendants or respondents. (April 10 Order at 2.) Pursuant to the April 10 Order, Plaintiff was to file a response to the Order to Show Cause by no later than April 24, 2009. (Id.) United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court construes Plaintiff's Motion for Restraining Order Terminating Automatic Stay as a Complaint. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the Order to Show cause. In addition, the Court conducted a hearing on May 4, 2009, and Plaintiff failed to appear. On May 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed a declaration. (See Docket Item No. 12.) The Court has considered Plaintiff's declaration, but finds that it is unresponsive to the issues raised in the Court's Order to Show Cause and fails to show that Plaintiff will continue to prosecute this action.2 Accordingly, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judgment shall be entered. Dated: May 12, 2009 JAMES WARE United States District Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff's declaration again states that he is disabled, and therefore has, inter alia, had difficulty prosecuting this action. However, the Court has previously informed Plaintiff that he has a duty to prosecute this action regardless of his disability. 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Fred Farmahin Farahani 1705 Westmont Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Dated: May 12, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?