Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The action, Khademi v. Vartenian, et al., No. 2:23-cv-2743, is in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. According to the findings and recommendations, it was dismissed on March 31, 2026, after plaintiff Davood Khademi failed to prosecute it. The document does not describe the underlying claims or the events leading to that dismissal, and it does not say whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
About three months later, on June 17, 2026, Khademi filed a motion to reopen the case, ECF No. 33, together with an appeal to the Court of Appeals, ECF No. 34. The appellate court remanded the matter to the district court to consider the pending motion, and the district judge referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson, ECF No. 37. The motion therefore reached the magistrate judge for a recommendation, not a final ruling.
Contact problems followed. On July 24, 2026, mail sent to Khademi was returned as undeliverable. On August 26, 2026, Judge Peterson ordered Khademi to show cause why he had not kept the court apprised of his current address, as Local Rule 183(b) requires. ECF No. 38. That order was also returned as undeliverable, and more than twenty-one days have now passed without any response reflected in the findings.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Peterson recommends that the motion to reopen, ECF No. 33, be denied because Khademi failed to keep the court apprised of his current address and failed to prosecute, and that the action remain closed. His reasoning is short: with the show-cause order returned undeliverable and unanswered, "there is no sense in reopening a case that a claimant has declined to prosecute." The findings do not address any argument made in the motion itself, do not identify a particular rule under which reopening is sought, and do not walk through a multi-factor dismissal test.
The posture matters. This is a recommendation, not an order resolving the motion. It is submitted to the assigned United States District Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the motion remains undecided unless and until that judge acts. Any party may file written objections within fourteen days of service, captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," and any response is due within fourteen days after the objections are served. The parties are warned that failing to object within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order, citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998), and Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Several matters stay open. The district judge has not yet adopted or rejected the recommendation. Khademi, whose mail has been returned, may or may not file objections. The findings also say nothing further about the appeal filed alongside the motion beyond noting the Court of Appeals' remand for consideration of the motion. Nor do they alter the March 31, 2026 dismissal itself; they recommend only that the case stay closed.
Key Takeaways
- A magistrate judge may recommend denying a motion to reopen a case dismissed for failure to prosecute when the movant cannot be reached and does not answer a show-cause order.
- Local Rule 183(b) requires parties to keep the court apprised of a current address, and returned mail, including the show-cause order itself, supported the conclusion that the plaintiff had stopped prosecuting.
- The document is a recommendation to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), not a final order, so the motion is not conclusively resolved until the district judge rules.
- Parties have fourteen days after service to object, and failing to object within that period may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.
- This non-precedential district court recommendation does not analyze the merits of any ground for reopening.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates how a party's inability to be reached can end a bid to revive a dismissed case. The findings do not discuss any reasons offered for reopening; the unanswered show-cause order and the lack of a working address were enough, in the magistrate judge's view, to show that the plaintiff was no longer prosecuting.
For litigants, the practical lesson is to update the court promptly whenever contact information changes, particularly while a motion or appeal is pending. For courts, the decision shows a measured sequence: a show-cause order first, then a recommendation only after the response period lapsed. Because it is only a recommendation and is not precedential, its weight is limited to this case and to what the district judge decides.