Saddozai v. Nelson
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-04492
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Saddozai v. Riney, Judge Freeman ordered plaintiff to locate a successor, denied amendment, and denied reconsideration of counsel appointment.
Shikeb Saddozai must locate and provide service information for Kennedy Benjamin Riney’s successor or representative within 90 days, or the action may be dismissed without prejudice; his motions for appointed counsel reconsideration and amendment to add Daly City were denied.
What happened
In Saddozai v. Riney, Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights case against Daly City police officer Kennedy Benjamin Riney. The court had previously found that the complaint stated a Fourth Amendment claim, but the court was informed that Riney had died before being served.
The court allowed Saddozai to try to locate Riney’s successor or representative and required him to provide an address for service within 90 days. Saddozai also asked to add Daly City as a defendant and sought reconsideration of the earlier denial of appointed counsel.
Judge Freeman denied both motions. The court said the amendment did not adequately allege a basis for holding Daly City responsible for an employee’s conduct, and it denied reconsideration because circumstances had not changed. The case may be dismissed without prejudice if Saddozai does not provide the required service information or complete substitution after proper notice of Riney’s death.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Nelson · No. 5:18-cv-04492
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 16, 2020
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously determined that the second amended complaint, liberally construed, stated a Fourth Amendment claim against Officer Kennedy B. Riney of the Daly City Police Department. The court ordered the case served on Riney, but the Daly City Police Department later filed a statement reporting that Riney had died on March 18, 2018. The opinion states that Riney had not yet been served in this action.
Deceased defendant and service
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a), when a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, a proper party may seek substitution. The court explained that the 90-day period for seeking substitution begins only after a statement noting the death is formally placed on the record and properly served on the other parties and any nonparty successor or representative.
The court allowed Saddozai to attempt to locate Riney’s successor or representative. Saddozai must provide the United States Marshal with an address where that person can be served with the statement noting Riney’s death and must file a motion to substitute the deceased party under Rule 25. If substitution is not made within 90 days after proper service of the death statement, the claims against Riney shall be dismissed.
The court also addressed service under Rule 4(m). Because Riney had not been served, the court stated that the case could be dismissed without prejudice if service was not completed in due course and no good cause was shown. The court granted Saddozai an extension of time and ordered him, within 90 days after the order was filed, to provide an address for serving Riney’s successor or representative. Failure to do so would result in dismissal without prejudice of the action, without further notice.
Motion for reconsideration and request for counsel
Saddozai moved for reconsideration of the prior order denying appointment of counsel. He cited limited legal materials, restricted access to the law library and legal assistance, and the need for help. He also generally requested an injunction concerning alleged violence, harassment, and retaliation by officials at Corcoran State Prison. The court stated that Corcoran State Prison was not a party to this case and that it lacked jurisdiction in this action to issue an injunction against the prison or its employees; it said any new claims against those employees must be brought in a separate civil-rights action.
The court denied the motion for reconsideration because Saddozai had not shown changed circumstances. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel on its own initiative at a later time if the circumstances warranted it.
Motion to amend
Saddozai moved to amend the complaint to add Daly City as a defendant. He alleged that Riney was Daly City’s agent, servant, and employee. The court explained that a local government may be liable under § 1983 when an official policy or custom causes a constitutional violation, but it may not be held responsible merely because it employed the person who allegedly committed the violation.
Because Saddozai’s allegations sought to hold Daly City liable solely for Riney’s acts and did not identify the required municipal policy or custom, the court determined that the allegations were insufficient. The court denied the motion to amend.
Disposition
The court ordered the clerk to serve Saddozai with the statement noting Riney’s death and a copy of the order. It ordered Saddozai to provide the information needed for service and substitution within 90 days. It denied the motion for reconsideration of the denial of appointed counsel and denied the motion to amend the complaint to add Daly City. The order terminated Docket Nos. 32 and 33.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.