Saddozai v. Atchley

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against S. Tomlinson at Salinas Valley State Prison. The complaint asserts a First Amendment free-speech violation. Settlement proceedings were unsuccessful, and the case was referred to the Federal Pro Se Program to try to find trial counsel. The case was stayed while that referral was pending.

The court had previously denied Saddozai’s request to require the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or CDCR, to join this case as a party. The court had directed him to bring his new claims against CDCR in a separate action and pay the related filing fees.

Requests in Docket No. 110

After his transfer to Pelican Bay State Prison, Saddozai alleged that he had been without his property and that state officials at San Quentin had taken or retained it to retaliate against him for pending litigation and other advocacy. He also alleged other conduct by officials at San Quentin and Pelican Bay. He again asked the court to add CDCR as a defendant, relying on what he called new evidence, and asked for judicial notice and judicial intervention.

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 allows a court to take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only when the fact is not reasonably disputable because it is generally known or can be accurately and readily determined from a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Rulings

The court denied Saddozai’s request for judicial notice. It found that his allegations about officials at San Quentin and Pelican Bay were not generally known and could not be accurately and readily determined from unquestionable sources. The court characterized the request as another attempt to bring CDCR into this case based on claims unrelated to the existing First Amendment claim against Tomlinson.

The court also stated that, to the extent Saddozai was seeking reconsideration of the earlier order denying joinder, that request was denied. Under the Northern District of California’s Local Rule 7-9, a party may not bring a pre-judgment motion for reconsideration without the court’s permission. The court found that Saddozai had not obtained that permission.

The court further stated that Saddozai must first exhaust administrative remedies through the prison grievance system to obtain relief for the recent loss of his property. The order terminated Docket No. 110.