Saddozai v. Carwithen
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-01352
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Saddozai v. Carwithen, Judge Freeman allowed a new opposition and reset briefing, but denied Saddozai’s request for appointed counsel.
Shikeb Saddozai received additional time to oppose the motion to revoke his fee-waiver status but was denied appointed counsel and a guardian ad litem. A. Carwithen received additional time to file a reply.
What happened
Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law over events at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had previously found that his amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim against A. Carwithen.
The court gave Saddozai 45 days to file a new response to Carwithen’s motion to revoke his fee-waiver status. If he files one, it will replace his current response; Carwithen’s reply will then be due 14 days after the new response is filed or due, whichever is later. The court did not decide the motion to revoke his fee-waiver status in this order.
Judge Freeman granted the request for more time to file a reply but denied Saddozai’s renewed request for appointed counsel and denied his related request for a guardian ad litem, finding no exceptional circumstances or new evidence supporting either request.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Carwithen · No. 5:21-cv-01352
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 24, 2022
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on events at Salinas Valley State Prison, where the opinion says he was confined. The court had previously found that his amended complaint stated a legally cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against A. Carwithen and ordered the case served.
Carwithen moved to revoke Saddozai’s fee-waiver status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Saddozai filed an opposition after the deadline. He also told the court that limited access to the law library made it difficult to litigate the case and indicated that his filing might be incomplete. Carwithen did not oppose treating the late filing as a request to submit a new opposition.
Rulings
The court granted Saddozai an opportunity to file a new opposition that would replace his existing opposition. He could file it, with supporting documents, within 45 days after the order was filed. If he filed a new opposition, the existing opposition and supporting documents identified as Docket Nos. 35–38 would be stricken from the record. If he did not file a new opposition within that period, the matter would proceed on his current opposition.
The court also granted Carwithen’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply. The reply was due no later than 14 days after Saddozai’s new opposition was filed or was due, whichever was later.
The court denied Saddozai’s second motion for appointment of counsel because it presented nothing new and did not show exceptional circumstances. To the extent the motion renewed a request for a guardian ad litem—a person appointed to protect a litigant’s interests when the litigant cannot adequately do so—the court also denied it because Saddozai had submitted no new evidence raising a substantial question about his competence.
Disposition
The order granted the extension of time and reset the briefing deadlines, denied the motion for appointment of counsel, and denied the renewed guardian-ad-litem request. It did not rule on the merits of Carwithen’s motion to revoke Saddozai’s fee-waiver status or on the underlying Eighth Amendment claim. The order terminated Docket Nos. 28 and 40.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.