Saddozai v. Esterheld
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-01279
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Saddozai v. Esterheld, Judge Freeman dismissed with prejudice the prisoner’s civil-rights complaint for failing to state a claim.
Shikeb Saddozai’s § 1983 claims against the Daly City Police Department were dismissed with prejudice; the opinion also names Kristen Esterheld and other defendants in the caption, but discusses the claims against the police department.
What happened
In Saddozai v. Esterheld, Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner representing himself, sued the Daly City Police Department under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that police failed to arrest his former girlfriend after he reported theft and fraud and provided information about his property and her location.
Saddozai claimed that the police’s inaction deprived him of property and violated his constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection. He sought damages, an order requiring action, and a declaration of his rights.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that the complaint did not state a claim because the alleged property loss was caused by a private person, not the government, and the police’s decision not to pursue criminal charges did not make them responsible for that original loss. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Esterheld · No. 5:20-cv-01279
- Beth Freeman
- June 30, 2020
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. His request to proceed without paying the filing fee was to be addressed in a separate order.
Saddozai sued the Daly City Police Department for its handling of his complaints about theft and fraud by his former girlfriend, Flora Sparks. He alleged that he reported the matter on or about February 3, 2016, gave police a description of the stolen items and information about Sparks’s known location, and that no arrest occurred. He claimed the police declined to make an arrest because he and Sparks had previously been in a relationship.
He alleged deliberate indifference and asserted that the police’s inaction caused violations involving his property, obstruction of justice, equal protection, and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. He requested injunctive and declaratory relief and damages.
Screening standard
Because a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity or officer, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim for relief, while construing self-represented pleadings liberally.
The court stated that a § 1983 claim requires allegations showing both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state law.
Ruling
Judge Freeman concluded that Saddozai failed to state a claim because he could not satisfy either required element. The alleged loss of property was caused by a private citizen, Sparks, rather than by the federal or state government. The court further ruled that the police’s decision not to pursue a criminal case or recover the property did not make the police responsible for the original loss.
The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). It stated that amendment could not factually cure the deficiency, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and denied leave to amend.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.