Saddozai v. Bolanos
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-03972
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Saddozai v. Arqueza, Judge Freeman denied requests for counsel, a guardian ad litem, and recusal.
Shikeb Saddozai, who remained without appointed counsel or a guardian ad litem and continued before Judge Beth Labson Freeman; the recusal request was also denied. The opinion states that Ms. Terry Arqueza had been substituted for deceased defendant A. Arqueza.
What happened
In Saddozai v. Arqueza, a state prisoner representing himself asked the court to appoint a lawyer or guardian ad litem and to remove the judge from the case. The case had been reopened after a remand, and the remaining claim was an Eighth Amendment claim against one defendant.
The court said the prisoner had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for appointed counsel. It also found no evidence creating a substantial question about his ability to represent himself, so appointment of a guardian ad litem was not warranted. The court further found that his accusations of bias, discrimination, financial gain, and improper conduct were conclusory and did not justify recusal.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion for appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem; the court had separately stated that the request for counsel was denied without prejudice. Judge Freeman also denied the motion for recusal, terminating both motions.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Bolanos · No. 5:18-cv-03972
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 7, 2022
Background
Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter had been reopened after a remand. The opinion states that deceased defendant A. Arqueza had been replaced by his successor, Ms. Terry Arqueza. The remaining claim was an Eighth Amendment claim against a single defendant, and summary judgment was due on November 15, 2022.
Saddozai filed a motion seeking appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem, and a separate motion seeking to disqualify or recuse the judge. The court had previously denied four requests for appointed counsel and one earlier recusal request.
Request for Counsel or Guardian Ad Litem
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, appointment of counsel for an indigent civil litigant is discretionary and permitted only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that Saddozai’s inability to afford counsel, limited legal knowledge, restricted library access, prison lockdowns, and limits on services were not exceptional circumstances among prisoner plaintiffs. It also found that the remaining Eighth Amendment claim was not too complex to litigate without counsel. The court said prison grievance procedures provided an adequate way to address the alleged interference by prison staff, and that Saddozai’s submissions showed he had obtained some relief.
The court therefore denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances.
The court also considered whether to appoint a guardian ad litem under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to protect a minor or an incompetent person who is not represented in the case. The court explained that a hearing or appointment may be required when there is a substantial question about a self-represented litigant’s competence, supported by verifiable evidence.
Saddozai asserted that mental-health issues and physical limitations interfered with his ability to litigate. But the court found that he submitted no evidence of incompetence. His exhibits instead showed that he had competently pursued prison complaints and challenges involving legal resources. The court also noted that a mental-health-record extract stated that he appeared to function generally without mental-health issues. It found no substantial question about his competence and concluded that he did not warrant appointment of a guardian ad litem.
Motion for Recusal
Saddozai sought recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, alleging that the judge was biased against him because of his poverty, imprisonment, and race. He also alleged improper remarks, retaliatory handling of his requests for counsel and amendments, delays, financial misconduct, and improper exclusion of evidence.
The court applied the standard asking whether a reasonable, well-informed person would question the judge’s impartiality. It found Saddozai’s allegations of bias, discrimination, and financial gain conclusory. The court stated that it had not acted with discriminatory animus or made improper remarks, and that its prior rulings were supported by legal authority and analysis. The court concluded that Saddozai’s allegations did not overcome the presumption that the judge was impartial.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem. It denied the motion for recusal. The order terminated Docket Nos. 56 and 62.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.