Saddozai v. Atchley

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff and officials at Salinas Valley State Prison and the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The third amended complaint was the operative complaint. The court had dismissed some claims and ordered the remaining cognizable claims served on S. Tomlinson. Tomlinson had filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint for failure to state a claim, but this order did not resolve that motion.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Saddozai asked the court to appoint counsel to assist with a deposition and discovery, preserve privilege, and enforce limits on evidence. The court noted that it had denied two earlier requests for counsel. It found that Saddozai had not shown exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel and that the request was premature because Tomlinson had not scheduled his deposition. The court also found that his concerns about discovery, privilege, and evidence were premature. The motion for appointment of counsel was DENIED.

Request to Take a Written Deposition

Saddozai objected to an oral deposition and asked for permission to provide written responses instead. Tomlinson argued that Saddozai had not attempted to meet and confer about his concerns as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The court found the issue premature and concluded that Saddozai had failed to meet and confer. The request for a written deposition was DENIED without prejudice in the discussion section; the conclusion described it as DENIED as premature.

Motion to Compel Legal Authorities

Saddozai asked the court to require Tomlinson to provide all cases and other legal authorities cited in Tomlinson’s filings. The court found no good cause for the request. It stated that Saddozai had a statutory right to access legal authorities through the prison law library but had provided no evidence that he was denied access. The court was also not persuaded that Tomlinson had improperly applied the law. The motion to compel was DENIED.

Objection to Defense Declarations and Extension of Time

Saddozai objected to declarations that he attributed to Tomlinson and opposing counsel. The court found that he had not identified the declarations adequately and noted that the motion to dismiss was not supported by a declaration because such a motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint and does not need other evidence. The objection was STRICKEN as vague and unfounded.

The court also agreed that Saddozai’s response to the motion to dismiss was not presented in the proper form. In the interest of justice, it granted him an extension of time to file a separate opposition. He was required to file it within 28 days after the order was filed, and Tomlinson was required to file a reply within 14 days after that filing deadline or as otherwise stated in the order.

Preliminary-Injunction Request

Saddozai sought an order preventing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from obstructing his access to the law library. He had been transferred from Salinas Valley State Prison to San Quentin State Prison, where he had no contact with Tomlinson. The court also noted that San Quentin personnel were not parties to the action and that the case did not include claims against them. The request for a preliminary injunction was DENIED as moot.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel, denied the motion for leave to take a written deposition, denied the motion to compel production of legal authorities, struck the objection to defense declarations, denied the request for a preliminary injunction as moot, and granted an extension of time to oppose the pending motion to dismiss. The order terminated Docket Nos. 50, 51, and 56.