Saddozai v. Carwithen
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-01352
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Saddozai v. Carwithen, Judge Freeman denied the plaintiff’s recusal motion because his bias allegations were conclusory.
The ruling affected Shikeb Saddozai’s request to remove the judge from the case. The motion was denied, while the underlying case had already been dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee.
What happened
Saddozai v. Carwithen was a civil-rights case brought by a California state prisoner. Before this order, the court revoked his fee-waiver status, and after he did not pay the full filing fee, it dismissed the case and entered judgment.
The plaintiff asked the judge to step aside under federal recusal laws. He alleged that the judge was biased against him because of his poverty, imprisonment, and race, and that rulings about counsel, amended complaints, and the filing fee were retaliatory.
The court rejected those allegations as conclusory and denied the motion. Judge Freeman stated that the prior rulings were supported by legal authority and analysis, and that the plaintiff could appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Carwithen · No. 5:21-cv-01352
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 21, 2022
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, a California state prisoner, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on events at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court previously granted the defendants’ motion to revoke Saddozai’s status allowing him to proceed without paying the filing fee. After Saddozai did not pay the full fee within the time allowed, the court dismissed the case on September 13, 2022, and entered judgment.
Motion and legal standard
Saddozai filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, which the court treated as a motion for recusal. Recusal means that a judge steps aside from a case. The court stated that both statutes use the same standard: whether a reasonable, well-informed person would question the judge’s impartiality or perceive a significant risk that the judge would decide the case for a reason other than its merits.
Saddozai alleged that the judge had personal bias and prejudice against him based on his poverty, imprisonment, and race. He also alleged that the judge made improper and insensitive comments, repeatedly denied his requests for appointed counsel, required him to amend his complaints, and revoked his fee-waiver status as retaliatory tactics intended to cause him to default.
Ruling
The court held that Saddozai’s allegations were conclusory and did not overcome the presumption that a federal judge is impartial. The court stated that it had not acted with discriminatory animus toward Saddozai and had not made improper remarks showing a lack of impartiality. It further stated that the rulings requiring amendments and revoking Saddozai’s fee-waiver status were supported by correct legal authority and proper analysis.
The court denied the motion for disqualification. The order terminated Docket No. 53. The court stated that Saddozai could appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit but otherwise had no basis for seeking recusal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.