Saddozai v. Bolanos

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 28, 2022
• Docket: 5:18-cv-03972
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHIKEB SADDOZAI, 11 Case No. 18-03972 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER ON REMAND; REQUESTING DEFENDANT’S v. 13 COUNSEL TO IDENTIFY THE

SUCCESSOR FOR DECEASED 14 CARLOS BOLANOS, et al., DEFENDANT A. ARQUEZA

15 Defendants. 16

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 16, 2019, the Court found the second amended 19 complaint, liberally construed, stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against 20 Defendant Sheriff A. Arqueza of San Mateo County. Dkt. No. 27 at 2-3.1 Plaintiff then 21 filed a third amended complaint on March 5, 2020. Dkt. No. 32. The Court granted leave 22 to amend the claims against Defendant Arqueza under the Fourteenth Amendment, but did 23 not address claims against newly named defendants, the Sheriff of San Mateo County and 24 the City of Redwood City. Dkt. No. 34. The Court screened the third amended complaint 25 and found it failed to state a claim against the new defendants. Dkt. No. 36 at 2-4. The 26 27 1 Court also found Plaintiff had failed to provide any information to serve this action on the 2 || successor or representative of then deceased Defendant A. Arqueza, and dismissed the 3 || claims against him without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). /d. at 4- 4 || 5. The Court entered judgment on August 10, 2020. Dkt. No. 37. Plaintiff appealed. 5 On February 18, 2022, the Ninth Circuit found the court improperly placed the 6 || burden to locate and identify the successor upon Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner plaintiff. Dkt. 7 || No. 48 at 2, citing Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 867 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that it 8 || was error to place the burden on a pro se prisoner plaintiff to identify decedent’s successor 9 || or personal representative and that Rule 25(a)’s 90-day requirement for substitution was 10 || not triggered). The Ninth Circuit therefore vacated and remanded the matter. 11 In light of this remand, the Court requests Defendants’ counsel, San Mateo County 2 Counsel, to identify the successor to deceased Defendant A. Arqueza and file notice E 13 || within ninety (90) days from the date this order is filed. Counsel shall also serve the S 14 || notice on Plaintiff. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Z 16 || Dated: _ March 28,2022 __ hot Llyn omen) BETH LABSON FREEMAN = "7 United States District Judge Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order on Remand; Requesting Def. Counsel PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\03972Saddozai_remand 26 27