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 officials at Salinas Valley State Prison and the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend. Saddozai filed an amended complaint that largely repeated the original allegations.

Saddozai alleged that, from about October 1, 2020, through August 23, 2021, defendants repeatedly prevented him from sleeping by shining a bright flashlight into his eyes, banging on his cell door and window, and disrupting the unit during nighttime cell checks. He alleged that these interruptions occurred roughly every hour between 11:00 p.m. and 4:30 a.m. He also alleged that the lack of sleep interfered with meals, programs, recreation, appointments, and job assignments, and that he was threatened with disciplinary charges for complaining.

Screening and rulings

Because the lawsuit concerned governmental defendants, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is an early review to determine whether claims are legally sufficient. The court concluded that the allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Correctional Officer A. Carwithen based on deprivation of sleep. The court found that Saddozai alleged Carwithen knew about the disruptions but failed to intervene to reduce an excessive risk to Saddozai’s health and safety.

The court also said Saddozai could seek to identify the unnamed “Control Tower Officer,” whom he described as Carwithen’s partner, through discovery and then move to amend the complaint to add that officer. The court did not determine the ultimate merits of the surviving claim in this order.

The court dismissed with prejudice the Eighth Amendment claims against Warden M. B. Atchley and the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation because Saddozai did not provide enough facts showing that either official knew both about the allegedly unconstitutional conditions and the wrongful conduct of particular subordinates and failed to act. The court concluded that Saddozai had already received an opportunity to correct these deficiencies and had not done so.

The court also dismissed with prejudice Saddozai’s First Amendment retaliation claim because he did not connect that claim to any named defendant. Claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments were dismissed with prejudice because the amended complaint did not remedy the previously identified deficiencies. The state-law claims were likewise dismissed with prejudice because Saddozai did not allege sufficient facts showing that a named defendant violated the cited state constitutional provisions.

Case status and next steps

The court ordered that the action proceed only on the Eighth Amendment claim against A. Carwithen. The clerk was directed to terminate the other defendants and serve Carwithen through the prison system’s electronic-service process. The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed. Saddozai’s opposition would be due 28 days after that motion, and a reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. Discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Beth Freeman also instructed Saddozai to serve his court communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, comply with court orders, and request extensions before the relevant deadline while showing good cause.