Saddozai v. Davis

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, identified in the order as a California state prisoner currently at Corcoran State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees at San Quentin State Prison. The third amended complaint was the operative complaint.

The district court had previously granted Defendant Clawson’s motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against him for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and entered judgment on August 10, 2020. Saddozai appealed. On May 23, 2022, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Saddozai had cured the exhaustion problem by the time he filed the third amended complaint. It therefore held that the district court had erred in dismissing the action on that basis, vacated the decision, and remanded the matter. The Ninth Circuit’s formal mandate was filed on July 14, 2022.

Claim Proceeding

The district court stated that the third amended complaint claims Clawson failed to protect Saddozai during an assault by several inmates, during which Clawson shot Saddozai with his block gun. The action will proceed solely on the merits of that claim against Clawson. All other claims and defendants remain dismissed.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered Clawson to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claim no later than 91 days after the order was filed. Any summary-judgment motion must comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and be supported by adequate factual documentation. The court noted that summary judgment and qualified immunity cannot be granted if material facts are disputed.

If Clawson files a summary-judgment motion, Saddozai must receive the warnings required by Ninth Circuit precedent. Saddozai must file and serve his opposition within 28 days after the motion is filed, and Clawson must file any reply within 14 days after the opposition. The motion will be considered submitted when the reply is due, unless the court later orders a hearing.

The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order under the cited discovery rules. Saddozai must serve communications to the court on Clawson or Clawson’s counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. The court warned that failing to prosecute the case could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b), and stated that requests for extensions must be timely and supported by good cause.

Disposition

This order reopened the action and set a briefing schedule for the remaining claim. It did not resolve the merits of Saddozai’s claim against Clawson.