Saddozai v. Bolanes
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-04511
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Saddozai v. Bolanes, Judge Freeman denied reconsideration and amendment, struck a proposed complaint, and granted an extension to oppose summary judgment.
Shikeb Saddozai, Dr. Spencer, Nurse Amanda, and the defendants involved in the proposed amendment and motion to strike. The order also affected the handling of the medical-record documents and the schedule for responding to defendants’ pending summary-judgment motion.
What happened
In Saddozai v. Bolanes, Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights case under federal law concerning medical care. The court had previously allowed a claim against Dr. Spencer and Nurse Amanda for failing to address serious medical needs. Several motions were pending while defendants’ request for summary judgment awaited a response.
The court denied Saddozai’s request to reconsider the refusal to appoint a lawyer, although it left open the possibility of appointing one later. It struck defendants’ withdrawn request to keep documents confidential. It denied Saddozai’s request to add defendants, granted defendants’ request to strike the proposed second amended complaint, and granted Saddozai more time to complete discovery and oppose summary judgment.
The court also said it could not order officials at Corcoran State Prison, which was not a party, to stop alleged violence, harassment, or retaliation in this case. Saddozai received 45 days to file his opposition, and defendants received 21 days afterward to reply. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on April 16, 2020.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Bolanes · No. 5:18-cv-04511
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 16, 2020
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had found that his amended complaint stated a legally sufficient claim that Dr. Spencer and Nurse Amanda were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs at the San Mateo County Jail. Defendants later filed a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a claim based on the evidence when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial.
The order addressed several other pending motions: reconsideration of the denial of appointed counsel, defendants’ request to file documents under seal, Saddozai’s request to amend his complaint, defendants’ request to strike the proposed second amended complaint, and Saddozai’s request for more time to complete discovery and respond to summary judgment.
Motions Regarding Counsel and Corcoran State Prison
The court treated Saddozai’s request for more time and his motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of appointed counsel as essentially the same filing. It granted the extension needed to make the reconsideration motion timely, but denied reconsideration because Saddozai had not shown changed circumstances. The court stated that this denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if the circumstances warranted it.
Saddozai also requested an order directing prison officials to stop alleged violence, harassment, and retaliation at Corcoran State Prison. The court stated that Corcoran State Prison was not a party and that the court therefore had no jurisdiction in this action to issue an injunction against the prison or its employees. It said Saddozai would need to bring any new claims against those employees in a separate civil-rights action.
Motion to File Under Seal
Defendants withdrew their request to file documents under seal after Saddozai’s opposition indicated that he consented to filing his unredacted medical records publicly. Because there was no remaining dispute, the court struck the motion to seal and directed that the documents not be filed under seal.
Amendment and Motion to Strike
Saddozai sought permission to add San Mateo County Correctional Health Services, Redwood City, and the Sheriff of the San Mateo County Jail Maguire Facility as defendants. Defendants opposed the amendment and moved to strike the proposed second amended complaint.
The court denied leave to amend based on undue delay, Saddozai’s failure to explain the delay, and undue prejudice to defendants. It noted that Saddozai had previously filed an amended complaint, had not included some of the proposed defendants in that complaint, and then waited more than 14 months before seeking to add them. The court also noted that defendants’ summary-judgment motion was already pending and that another amendment could require additional pleadings and dispositive motions.
The court granted defendants’ motion to strike. It ordered that the second amended complaint filed on March 5, 2020, be stricken.
Extension of Time and Disposition
The court construed Saddozai’s request for more time to complete discovery as a request for more time to oppose defendants’ summary-judgment motion. It found the request timely under the prisoner-mail rule and found good cause based on mail delays and limited access to the prison law library. The court granted the motion. Saddozai’s opposition was due within 45 days after the order was filed, and defendants’ reply was due 21 days after the opposition was filed.
The order did not decide defendants’ pending summary-judgment motion. Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the reconsideration motion and motion to amend, struck the withdrawn sealing motion and the proposed second amended complaint, granted defendants’ motion to strike, and granted the extension-of-time motion.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.