Saddozai v. Atchley

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute allows a person to seek relief for a violation of federal rights by someone acting under state authority. After earlier versions of the complaint were dismissed with permission to amend, the court reviewed Saddozai’s third amended complaint under the required screening process for prisoner cases.

The third amended complaint named S. Tomlinson, identified as the senior or supervising law-library employee at Salinas Valley State Prison. Saddozai alleged that he gave Tomlinson an original state habeas petition and exhibits for copying, and that Tomlinson read the confidential legal papers and kept them temporarily. Saddozai also alleged that, after he complained, Tomlinson sounded an alarm and had correctional officers remove him from the library in handcuffs, causing cuts, pain, and bruising. He further alleged that officers later forced him to strip in front of others and issued a rules violation report. He claimed that these events and other law-library practices violated the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Screening Rulings

The court found that the allegations connecting Tomlinson to the later strip search and rules violation report were conclusory and did not show that Tomlinson was present for, or knew about, those events. Those claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

The court found that Saddozai adequately alleged a First Amendment freedom-of-speech claim based on the allegation that Tomlinson expelled him from the law library for complaining. The court also found a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim based on the allegation that Tomlinson directed subordinates to remove Saddozai in painful handcuffs. The court treated this as a claim based on supervisory responsibility.

The court dismissed with prejudice Saddozai’s claim that he was denied access to the courts. It held that he did not identify the non-frivolous claim he was pursuing, a missed deadline, or an actual injury caused by the temporary withholding of his legal papers. The court also dismissed with prejudice the retaliation claim because the allegations were vague and did not adequately show retaliatory intent.

The court allowed a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim to proceed. Saddozai alleged that Tomlinson read and withheld his confidential legal documents without a written explanation, and the attached grievance materials indicated that the grievance appeal found the applicable policies had not been shown to have been followed.

Recusal Motion

Saddozai asked the court to disqualify or recuse Judge Freeman under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. He alleged bias related to his poverty, imprisonment, race, lack of a lawyer, repeated amendments, prior rulings, delays, and comments that he was a prolific filer. The court held that these assertions were conclusory and did not overcome the presumption that a federal judge is impartial. Judge Freeman denied the motion for recusal.

Disposition and Next Steps

The court ordered the case to proceed against S. Tomlinson on three claims: First Amendment freedom of speech, Eighth Amendment excessive force based on supervisory responsibility, and Fourteenth Amendment due process concerning withheld legal papers. It directed that Tomlinson be served. The court also set procedures for responding to Saddozai’s preliminary-injunction motion and for filing a motion to dismiss or, if no motion to dismiss was filed, a motion for summary judgment. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the three claims allowed to proceed.