Saddozai v. Bolanos

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously found that the second amended complaint stated legally sufficient Eighth Amendment claims against Sheriff A. Arqueza of San Mateo County. Saddozai later filed a third amended complaint. The court allowed amendment of the claims against Arqueza under the Fourteenth Amendment but found that the complaint failed to state a claim against newly named defendants, including the Sheriff of San Mateo County and the City of Redwood City.

A. Arqueza had died. The court had previously dismissed the claims against him without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because Saddozai had not provided information needed to serve the action on Arqueza’s successor or representative. Judgment was entered on August 10, 2020, and Saddozai appealed.

Ninth Circuit Remand

On February 18, 2022, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court improperly placed the burden on a pro se prisoner plaintiff to locate and identify a deceased defendant’s successor or personal representative. The Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the matter. It also concluded that the 90-day requirement for substitution under Rule 25(a) had not been triggered.

Current Order

In light of the remand, the court requested Defendants’ counsel, identified as San Mateo County Counsel, to identify the successor to deceased Defendant A. Arqueza and file a notice within 90 days after the order was filed. Counsel was also required to serve the notice on Saddozai. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered the order on March 28, 2022. The opinion does not state the identity of any successor.