Saddozai v. Carwithen

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer A. Carwithen, Warden M. B. Atchley, and the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He alleged that, from about October 1, 2020, through the filing of the complaint, prison officials repeatedly woke him every hour or so between 11:00 p.m. and 4:30 a.m. by shining a bright flashlight at his eyes and banging on his cell door and window. He also alleged that defendants threatened disciplinary charges to discourage him from filing complaints. He sought declaratory relief, an order requiring changes in conduct, and damages.

Saddozai also attempted to bring the case for himself and several other inmates, and he moved for appointment of counsel. The court stated that it would address his request to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Class Certification

The court treated Saddozai’s attempt to bring claims for other inmates as a request for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It denied that request because a person representing himself without a lawyer cannot adequately represent a class. The other individuals listed as plaintiffs were ordered removed from the action. The court stated that those individuals could pursue their own claims by filing separate actions.

Claims

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner complaint against governmental defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

The court held that Saddozai’s allegations of deprivation of sleep stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Carwithen. The court understood the allegations to assert that Carwithen knew about the disruptions and refused to intervene despite an excessive risk to Saddozai’s health or safety.

The court found the Eighth Amendment allegations against Warden Atchley insufficient. It explained that supervisory liability requires facts showing the supervisor’s personal involvement or a sufficient connection between the supervisor’s conduct and the constitutional violation. The allegations that Atchley had notice and knowledge were considered conclusory because they did not explain how he obtained that knowledge or identify the wrongful conduct of specific subordinates.

The court also found the Eighth Amendment allegations against the CDCR Director insufficient. The complaint did not show that the Director personally knew about the continuing sleep disruptions and failed to act. Allegations based only on supervisory responsibility over Atchley were insufficient.

The court found the First Amendment retaliation allegations insufficient. Saddozai generally alleged that defendants disrupted his sleep to stop him from filing complaints, but he did not connect that conduct to a specific defendant. The court also found that the alleged statement by Carwithen did not show that the adverse action occurred because of protected conduct or that it chilled Saddozai’s exercise of First Amendment rights. The court granted leave to try to state a retaliation claim against specific defendants.

The court dismissed, with leave to amend, the claims based on the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It found no allegations of an unreasonable search or seizure, a relevant Fifth Amendment criminal-proceeding or federal due-process violation, a taking of property, or a denial of Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection.

The court also dismissed the state constitutional claims with leave to amend. It explained that § 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights, not state constitutional rights, and that the complaint did not contain enough facts showing that a named defendant violated the cited state provisions.

Appointment of Counsel and Competence

The court denied Saddozai’s motion for appointment of counsel. It explained that indigent parties in civil cases generally do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel and that appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is reserved for exceptional circumstances. The court found that Saddozai’s asserted indigency, the complexity of the case, limited legal knowledge, and limited library access did not establish exceptional circumstances.

Saddozai also argued that his mental-health history made him unable to represent himself and required appointment of a guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c). The court found that the submitted documents did not provide verifiable evidence of current incompetence or raise a substantial question about his competence. It therefore found no duty to investigate his competence or appoint a guardian ad litem.

Disposition

The court ordered that the request for class certification and the motion for appointment of counsel were denied. It dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and gave Saddozai 28 days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. Alternatively, he could notify the court that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Carwithen. The court stated that failure to respond as ordered would result in the case proceeding solely on that claim and dismissal with prejudice of the other claims and defendants for failure to state a claim.

The opinion’s caption lists Case No. 21-01352 BLF (PR), while the conclusion instructs Saddozai to use Case No. C 21-01325 BLF (PR). The supplied metadata lists a filing date of June 30, 2021, but the opinion is signed and dated June 28, 2021.