Saddozai v. Davis
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-05558
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Saddozai v. Davis, Judge Freeman denied or mooted several motions, granted more time to oppose dismissal, and left the third amended complaint operative.
Shikeb Saddozai and the defendant involved in the pending motion to dismiss, identified in the order as Correctional Officer Clawson; the order also addressed requested relief involving Corcoran State Prison employees, who were not parties to the case.
What happened
Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights case under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. The court had previously found that his second amended complaint stated a failure-to-protect claim under the Eighth Amendment against Correctional Officer Clawson and had dismissed his other claims and defendants for failure to state a claim.
Saddozai filed motions seeking appointed counsel, reconsideration of an earlier denial of counsel, permission to amend, and more time related to discovery and opposing dismissal. He also sought an injunction against officials at Corcoran State Prison. The court said it could not issue an injunction against that prison or its employees because they were not parties to this case, and said new claims against them would need to be brought separately.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the counsel and reconsideration motions without prejudice, denied the motion to amend as unnecessary, and denied as moot the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint because the third amended complaint had become the operative complaint. Judge Freeman granted Saddozai’s request for more time to oppose the defendant’s latest motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Davis · No. 5:18-cv-05558
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 23, 2020
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously determined that his second amended complaint stated a legally recognizable claim that Correctional Officer Clawson failed to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court had dismissed all other claims and defendants for failure to state a claim.
Saddozai filed a third amended complaint on March 6, 2020, after Clawson moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court determined that Saddozai was allowed to amend his complaint as a matter of course within the applicable 21-day period. As a result, the third amended complaint became the operative complaint, meaning it replaced the second amended complaint as the pleading currently governing the case.
Motions for Appointment of Counsel and Reconsideration
Saddozai filed another motion seeking appointment of counsel and a separate motion asking the court to reconsider its prior denial of appointed counsel. He cited limited legal materials, restricted law-library access, limited legal assistance, and the need for help conducting discovery. The court found that the motions essentially raised the same arguments and that Saddozai’s filings, including a recent discovery-related motion, were articulate and organized.
The court denied both motions for lack of changed circumstances. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel on its own initiative later if the circumstances warranted it. Saddozai also requested an injunction directing officials at Corcoran State Prison to stop alleged violence, harassment, and retaliation. The court stated that Corcoran State Prison was not a party to the action and that it therefore had no jurisdiction in this case to issue an injunction against the prison or its employees. The court stated that any new claims against those employees must be brought in a separate civil-rights action.
Motion to Amend and Motions to Dismiss
The court denied Saddozai’s motion to amend as unnecessary because the third amended complaint was already properly filed and had become the operative complaint. The court denied as moot Clawson’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint because that complaint was no longer the operative pleading. “Moot” means that the motion no longer presents a live dispute requiring a ruling because circumstances have changed.
Clawson had also filed a later motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The order did not decide that later motion. Instead, the court construed Saddozai’s request for more time to complete discovery as a request for an extension of time to file his opposition to that motion. Because Clawson did not oppose a reasonable, finite extension and the court found good cause, it granted the extension. Saddozai was required to file his opposition within 28 days after the order was filed, and Clawson was required to file a reply within 14 days after the opposition was filed.
Disposition
The court denied the motions for appointment of counsel and reconsideration without prejudice; denied the motion to amend as unnecessary; denied as moot the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint; and granted the motion for an extension of time to oppose the latest motion to dismiss. The order terminated Docket Nos. 24, 26, 27, 30, and 33. This order was procedural and did not decide the merits of the claims in the operative third amended complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.