Shikeb Saddozai v. ARQUEZA, Deputy Sheriff; SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF; CITY OF REDWOOD CITY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHIKEB SADDOZAI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
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.
No. 20-16660
D.C. No. 5:18-cv-03972-BLF
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16660
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 of 2 --