Saddozai v. Bolanos
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-03972
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Saddozai v. Bolanos, Judge Freeman denied Saddozai’s motion to reconsider the earlier summary judgment for Terry Arqueza.
The ruling affected Shikeb Saddozai and Terry Arqueza, the substituted defendant. It left in place the earlier judgment entered after the court granted summary judgment for the defendant.
What happened
In Saddozai v. Bolanos, Shikeb Saddozai, a California inmate representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision granting summary judgment to Terry Arqueza, the successor to deceased Officer A. Arqueza.
The court found that Saddozai had not shown a legal reason to reconsider the judgment. His claims about prison conditions, physical therapy, mental-health services, missing legal services, alleged retaliation, and the court’s handling of his evidence did not establish the required grounds, and he had not opposed the summary-judgment motion despite receiving extensions.
Judge Freeman denied the motion for reconsideration and stated that Saddozai may appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The order terminated the motion on the docket.
The detailed version
- Saddozai v. Bolanos · No. 5:18-cv-03972
- Beth Freeman
- July 21, 2023
Background
Shikeb Saddozai filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The operative complaint was his second amended complaint. The opinion states that deceased Officer A. Arqueza was substituted by his widow, Terry Arqueza, as his successor, and that the case proceeded on claims against the defendant.
The defendant moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule when the evidence shows no genuine dispute requiring a trial. Saddozai did not file an opposition, even after receiving several extensions. On June 26, 2023, the court granted the summary-judgment motion and entered judgment.
Motion for Reconsideration
Saddozai then filed a motion asking the court to reconsider the summary-judgment ruling, strike the defendant’s declarations and exhibits, appoint counsel, and take judicial notice of his evidence. The court construed the filing as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b).
The court explained that reconsideration is not a substitute for an appeal or a way to reargue an alleged judicial error. It identified the relevant grounds as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or the specific grounds listed in Rule 60(b), such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or extraordinary circumstances.
The court rejected Saddozai’s assertions about physical therapy, prison conditions, mental-health treatment, participation in the Plata/Coleman class, and lack of legal services as insufficient grounds for reconsideration. It also found that his allegation that defense counsel retaliated against him was conclusory and unsupported by facts. The court found no evidence of misconduct by defense counsel.
The court also rejected Saddozai’s claim that it had acted as an advocate for the defendant and improperly handled his evidence. It stated that the defendant had submitted sufficient evidence showing no genuine issue of material fact, while Saddozai had failed to produce relevant evidence showing that such an issue existed. The court concluded that granting summary judgment was not clear error and that Saddozai had not shown any other basis for reconsideration.
Disposition
The court denied Saddozai’s motion for reconsideration. It stated that he may appeal to the Ninth Circuit and that the order terminated Docket No. 122.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.