SHIKEB SADDOZAI V. PETER NELSON, No. 20-16803 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHIKEB SADDOZAI, No. Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-16803 D.C. No. 5:18-cv-04492-BLF MEMORANDUM* PETER NELSON; CITY OF DALY CITY; CARLOS G. BOLANOS, Sheriff, County of San Mateo Jail; SCOTT KIRKPATRICK, Captain, Maguire Correctional Facility; SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL; ROBERT C. MACKERSIE, Doctor; NELLIE MIKULIN, Nurse; CAZANIS, Registered Nurse; MARIA JANETT, Registered Nurse; DAVID ELKIN, Psychologist; MICHELLE REYES, Physical Therapist; BENJAMIN RINEY, Police Officer, Daly City Police Dept., Defendants-Appellees. 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 may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Jones v. Allison, 9 F.4th 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm. The district did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Saddozai’s action because Saddozai did not comply with the court’s order, or request an extension of time to effect service. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (affirming dismissal for failure to serve where pro se plaintiff did not show good cause for the failure or show that he provided sufficient information for the marshal to effect service). AFFIRMED. 2 20-16803

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.