Shikeb Saddozai v. Arqueza
Shikeb Saddozai v. Arqueza
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHIKEB SADDOZAI, No. 20-16660
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-03972-BLF
v. MEMORANDUM* ARQUEZA, Deputy Sheriff; SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF; CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
CARLOS G. BOLANOS; SCOTT KIRKPATRICK; SERVICE LEAGUE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; MAGUIRE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY OF SAN MATEO COUNTY; CAMPOS; BOOTS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Shikeb Saddozai appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action alleging violation of his constitutional
rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a dismissal for failure to effect service under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m). Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated
in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). We vacate
and remand.
When the district court was informed that defendant Arqueza had passed
away during the pendency of this action, it ordered Saddozai to locate a successor
or representative for Arqueza, provide an address for service, and to file a motion
for substitution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. When Saddozai failed
to do so, the district court dismissed the action. The district court improperly
placed the burden to locate and identify the successor upon Saddozai, a pro se
prisoner plaintiff. See Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 867 (9th Cir. 2019)
(holding that it was error to place the burden on a pro se prisoner plaintiff to
identify decedent’s successor or personal representative and that Rule 25(a)’s 90-
day requirement for substitution was not triggered).
VACATED and REMANDED.
2 20-16660
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished