Saddozai v. Bolanos
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-03972
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Saddozai v. Arqueza, Judge Freeman substituted Terry Arqueza for a deceased defendant and set service and dispositive-motion deadlines.
Shikeb Saddozai, Terry Arqueza as the substituted defendant, and the defendants and their counsel, who received service, motion, response, reply, and case-management instructions.
What happened
In Saddozai v. Arqueza, a California inmate representing himself brought a civil-rights case under federal law against Deputy A. Arqueza, who died while the case was pending. The court had reopened the case after a remand and asked San Mateo County Counsel to identify the deceased defendant’s successor.
The court treated County Counsel’s notice as a request to substitute Terry Arqueza and granted it. The case will continue on claims alleging excessive force, inadequate medical care, unsanitary conditions, and an unjustified disciplinary action. The court ordered service on Terry Arqueza and directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion resolving the case within 91 days.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman also set deadlines for the plaintiff’s response and the defendants’ reply, allowed discovery, and reminded the plaintiff to follow court orders and keep the court informed of address changes.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Bolanos · No. 5:18-cv-03972
- Beth Freeman
- June 27, 2022
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case concerns claims against Deputy A. Arqueza. The court had reopened the matter after a remand and asked San Mateo County Counsel to identify a successor to the deceased defendant.
County Counsel notified the court that Terry Arqueza was believed to be the deceased defendant’s widow and that no other known adult could be his personal successor or representative. County Counsel also stated that counsel would accept service for Terry Arqueza at the county counsel’s address.
Ruling
The court construed County Counsel’s notice as a motion to substitute a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) and granted the motion. It ordered that Terry Arqueza replace deceased Defendant A. Arqueza and directed the clerk to update the docket.
The court stated that the case would proceed on the claims identified as cognizable in an earlier screening order: Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and unsanitary conditions, along with a due-process claim concerning an allegedly false and unjustified disciplinary action. The court did not decide the merits of those claims in this order.
Service and Case Schedule
The clerk was ordered to mail Terry Arqueza a notice of the lawsuit, service-waiver forms, the second amended complaint and attachments, the screening order, and this order at the San Mateo County Counsel’s office. The court explained that defendants who refuse to waive service without good cause may have to pay the cost of formal service.
Within 91 days after the order was filed, the defendants were required to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims, or notify the court if they believed the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. A summary-judgment motion is a request for judgment without a trial based on the evidence and the absence of a genuine dispute over important facts. The plaintiff’s opposition was due 28 days after the motion, and any reply was due 14 days after the opposition.
The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required the plaintiff to serve copies of communications on the defendants or their counsel, and warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with orders could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b). Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.