Saddozai v. Carwithen
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-01352
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Saddozai v. Carwithen, Judge Freeman denied recusal and extended the deadline to amend the prisoner’s civil-rights complaint.
Shikeb Saddozai, the self-represented prisoner plaintiff, must meet the extended deadline or face the consequences described in the order; Defendant A. Carwithen and the other defendants are affected by the narrowed claims and conditional dismissal described by the court.
What happened
In Saddozai v. Carwithen, Shikeb Saddozai, a California state prisoner representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law over events at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had dismissed his original complaint but allowed him to amend it, and he had not met the original deadline.
Saddozai asked the judge to step aside, claiming a conflict of interest, prejudice, and personal bias. The court said these were unsupported conclusions and did not show that a reasonable person would question the judge’s impartiality. The court also extended the deadline by 28 days for Saddozai to file an amended complaint.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion for recusal. She also allowed Saddozai either to file an amended complaint or to proceed only on the stated Eighth Amendment claim against A. Carwithen and remove the other claims and defendants. The order said that failing to respond would lead to that limited case proceeding and dismissal with prejudice of the other claims and defendants.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Carwithen · No. 5:21-cv-01352
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 6, 2021
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, identified as a California state prisoner, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on events at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he was confined. He represented himself. On June 30, 2021, the court dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend, giving him until July 28, 2021, to file an amended complaint. He had not filed one by the time of this order.
Motion for recusal
Saddozai filed a motion described as a “preemptory challenge and disqualification of judge,” citing California and federal statutes. The court explained that California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.6 applies to judges in California state superior court and therefore did not apply to this federal case. The court could not identify the law cited as sections “1141.8” or “1141.18(d),” so it treated the filing as a motion asking the judge to recuse herself.
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, recusal is required when a reasonable, well-informed person would reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. A federal judge is presumed to be impartial, and the party seeking recusal has a substantial burden to show bias or prejudice. Saddozai asserted that there was a conflict of interest and that the judge was prejudiced, personally biased against him, and favoring the opposing party. The court found those assertions conclusory and unsupported by factual allegations.
Ruling and amendment deadline
The court denied the motion for recusal. It stated that Saddozai could appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but otherwise had no basis for recusal.
The court also granted Saddozai an extension of time to respond to the earlier dismissal order. Within 28 days after this order was filed, he could file an amended complaint. Alternatively, he could notify the court that he wished to proceed solely on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant A. Carwithen and remove all other claims and defendants. The court stated that all other provisions of the earlier order remained in effect.
The order further stated that if Saddozai failed to respond as required and within the stated time, the case would proceed solely on the Eighth Amendment claim against A. Carwithen, while all other claims and defendants would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The order terminated Docket No. 11.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.