Saddozai v. Bolanos

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously found that his second amended complaint stated legally sufficient Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Arqueza. The County of San Mateo filed a statement noting that Arqueza had died on July 16, 2019, while the case was pending. Arqueza had not been served, and no lawyer had appeared for Arqueza’s estate.

Deceased Defendant and Service

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 allows substitution of a deceased party’s successor or representative when the claim continues after death. The court explained that the 90-day substitution period begins only after the death is formally placed on the record and the death notice is properly served on the relevant parties and nonparty successor or representative.

The court allowed Saddozai to try to locate Arqueza’s successor or representative. Saddozai must provide an address so the U.S. Marshal can serve that person with the death notice, and he must file a motion to substitute the successor or representative. The court separately granted an extension of time under Rule 4(m), which governs service of process. No later than 90 days after the order was filed, Saddozai had to provide an address for service. The court stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice. It also stated that failure to make a substitution within 90 days after service of the death notice would result in dismissal of the claims against Arqueza.

Motions for Counsel and Injunctive Relief

Saddozai filed a third motion for appointment of counsel and a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier denial of counsel. He relied on the same alleged lack of legal materials, law-library access, and legal assistance. The court denied both motions for lack of changed circumstances. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel on its own at a later date if circumstances warranted it.

Saddozai also generally requested a preliminary injunction and an order directing prison officials to stop alleged violence, harassment, and retaliation. The court stated that Corcoran State Prison and its employees were not parties to this action and that it had no jurisdiction in this case to issue an injunction against them. It directed Saddozai to bring any new claims against those employees in a separate civil-rights action.

Third Amended Complaint

Saddozai filed another amended complaint on March 5, 2020. The court treated it as a third amended complaint because it concerned the same underlying event—alleged excessive force on April 30, 2018—and named only Arqueza. The filing newly alleged that Saddozai was a pretrial detainee and that the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Eighth Amendment, governed his claims. The court granted leave to file the third amended complaint in the interest of justice and deemed it the operative complaint. It could not be served on Arqueza’s successor or representative until Saddozai provided an address and sought substitution.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the Clerk to serve Saddozai with the death notice and a copy of the order. The motion for appointment of counsel and the motion for reconsideration were denied. Leave to file the third amended complaint was granted, and that complaint became operative. The order did not decide the underlying excessive-force claims on their merits.