Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-03972/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-03972-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHIKEB SADDOZAI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARLOS BOLANOS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 18-03972 BLF (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 

TO LOCATE SUCCESSOR OR 

REPRESENTATIVE FOR 

DECEASED DEFENDANT; 

GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; DENYING MOTIONS 

RE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; 

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 

(Docket Nos. 31, 33) 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 16, 2019, the Court found the second amended 

complaint, liberally construed, stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against 

Defendant Sheriff Arqueza of San Mateo County. Dkt. No. 27 at 2-3.1

 The Court ordered 

the matter served on Defendant, directing him to file a dispositive motion or notice 

regarding such motion. Id. On January 14, 2020, counsel for the County of San Mateo 

filed a Statement Noting Death of Defendant A. Arqueza, who passed away on July 16, 

2019, during the pendency of this action. Dkt. No. 29. The statement of death was also 

1

 In the same order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under the First and Sixth 

Amendments for failure to state claim. Dkt. No. 27 at 4. 

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 34 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 7
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

served on Plaintiff at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi. Dkt. No. 29-1. 

However, it is unclear whether Plaintiff ever received this notice because the next day, on 

January 15, 2020, the Court received a Notice of Change of Address from Plaintiff, stating 

that his current address was now Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”). Dkt. No. 30. 

Accordingly, the Court will order the Clerk to serve a copy of the Statement Noting Death 

of Defendant on Plaintiff along with a copy of this order. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Deceased Defendant 

“If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order 

substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by 

the decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90 days after 

service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be 

dismissed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a). Two things are required of a party for the running of 

the 90 day period to commence: a party must 1) formally suggest the death of the party on 

the record, and 2) serve the suggestion of death on the other parties and nonparty 

successors or representatives. Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). A 

party may be served the suggestion of death by service on his or her attorney, Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 5(b), while non-party successors or representatives of the deceased party must be served 

the suggestion of death in the manner provided by Rule 4 for the service of a summons. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3); Barlow, 39 F.3d at 232-34. Rule 25 requires dismissal absent a 

motion for substitution within the 90-day period only if the statement of death was 

properly served. Unicorn Tales, Inc., v. Bannerjee, 138 F.3d 467, 469-71 (2d Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff may attempt to locate Defendant Arqueza’s successor or 

representative, and then request the Court order the Marshal to serve them with a statement 

noting the death of Defendant Arqueza. With the notice, Plaintiff must file a motion for 

substitution of the decedent party under Rule 25(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 34 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 7
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Procedure, which will be served on the successor or representative along with the 

statement of death. 

Furthermore, because Defendant Arqueza has not yet been served in this action, the 

claims against him may be subject to dismissal under Rule 4(m).2

 Although a plaintiff 

who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on service by the Marshal, 

such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such service”; rather, 

“[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant and 

attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. 

Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint has been 

pending since July 2, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. If Defendant’s successor or representative is not 

served in due course, absent a showing of “good cause,” Plaintiff’s claims against these 

Defendants shall be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff must 

provide the U.S. Marshal with sufficient information to effectuate service or face dismissal 

of his complaint without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be 

dismissed under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with 

sufficient information to effectuate service). 

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has filed a third motion for appointment of counsel.3 Dkt. No. 31. He has 

also filed a motion for reconsideration of the last court order denying him appointment of 

counsel, based on the same grounds. Dkt. No. 33. In the motion, Plaintiff also generally 

requests a preliminary injunction and court order for prison officials to “cease and desist 

2

 The Court notes that the Statement of Death for Defendant Arqueza was filed by counsel 

for Sheriff Carlos G. Bolanos, who no longer a party to this action, on behalf of the County 

of San Mateo, and not as representing Defendant Arqueza’s estate. Dkt. No. 29. No 

counsel has appeared on behalf of Defendant Arqueza, who therefore remains unserved in 

this matter. 

 

3 The Court denied Plaintiff’s past two motions for appointment of counsel for lack of 

extraordinary circumstances. Dkt. Nos. 10, 26. 

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 34 Filed 03/25/20 Page 3 of 7
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

violence, harassment and retaliation to interefer[e] with plaintiff’s civil action.” Dkt. No. 

31 at 2. As stated above, Plaintiff is currently being housed at CSP, which is not a party to 

this action. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction over CSP or any of its employees in 

this action to issue an injunctive order against them. Plaintiff must file any new claims 

against CSP employees in a separate civil rights action. 

Plaintiff asserts the same reasons as in his previous motions: lack of legal material 

and access to the law library and legal assistance. Dkt. No. 31 at 4, 6. The Court also 

notes that despite the challenges he alleges, Plaintiff managed to file another “amended 

complaint” on March 5, 2020. Dkt. No. 32. Accordingly, the motions for appointment of 

counsel and reconsideration are DENIED for lack of changed circumstances. See 

Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Rand v. 

Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 

(9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This denial 

is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel at a future date 

should the circumstances of this case warrant such appointment. 

C. Third Amended Complaint

 Plaintiff filed an “amended complaint” on March 5, 2020, which constitutes a 

THIRD amended complaint. Dkt. No. 32. Plaintiff only names Defendant Arqueza as a 

defendant and raises claims based on the same underlying event, i.e., excessive force on 

April 30, 2018. Dkt. No. 32 at 4. For the first time, he alleges that he was a pretrial 

detainee at the time and that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. Id. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally in favor of amendments 

and, in general, leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. See Janicki Logging 

Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court finds good cause to grant the 

amendment which identifies the appropriate standard for pretrial detainees under the 

Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 

520, 535 (1979); Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) 

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 34 Filed 03/25/20 Page 4 of 7
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(en banc). Accordingly, the Court construes the filing of this third amended complaint as a 

motion for leave to do so and GRANTS the motion in the interest of justice. However, 

third amended complaint cannot be served on Defendant until Plaintiff has successfully 

provided the Court with an address for Defendant Arqueza’s successor or representative 

and moves for substitution of the decedent party. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Because the sole defendant in this action, Defendant Deputy Arqueza, has 

passed away, this matter can only proceed if Plaintiff is able to locate a successor or 

representative for Defendant. Plaintiff may attempt to locate Defendant Arqueza’s

successor or representative and provide the Court with an appropriate address where the 

Marshal can serve them with a suggestion noting the death of Defendant Arqueza. Along 

with the location information, Plaintiff must file a motion for substitution of the deceased 

party under Rule 25. If substitution is not made within ninety days after service of a 

statement of Defendant Arqueza’s death, the claims against Defendant Arqueza shall be 

dismissed. 

Separately, this action may be subject to dismissal under Rule 4(m) if service is not 

effectuated in due course. In the interest of justice, the Court will grant Plaintiff an 

extension of time to comply with Rule 4(m). No later than ninety (90) days from the 

date this order is filed, Plaintiff must provide the Court with an address to serve 

Defendant Arqueza’s successor or representative. Failure to do so will result in the 

dismissal without prejudice of this action and without further notice to Plaintiff. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. No. 31, and motion for 

reconsideration of the court’s order denying his last such order, Dkt. No. 33, are DENIED. 

3. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is deemed the operative complaint in this 

action. Dkt. No. 32. 

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 34 Filed 03/25/20 Page 5 of 7
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

4. The Clerk of the Court shall include a copy of the Statement Noting the 

Death of Defendant Arqueza, Dkt. No. 29, with a copy of this order to Plaintiff, along with 

a certificate of service. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 31 and 33. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 25, 2020 

 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 34 Filed 03/25/20 Page 6 of 7
7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Order to Locate Succ/Rep; Granting Amend; Denying Mots. for Appt. of Counsel 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\03972Saddozai_subs.Def&deny.atty3 

Case 5:18-cv-03972-BLF Document 34 Filed 03/25/20 Page 7 of 7