SHIKEB SADDOZAI V. K. HOSEY, ET AL, No. 21-16591 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHIKEB SADDOZAI, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-16591 D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01611-DAD-HBK v. K. HOSEY, Appeals Coordinator at CCI; M. BOUTTE, Appeals Coordinator at CCI, MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2023** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Shikeb Saddozai appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 * 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). F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Saddozai’s action because Saddozai failed to file a second amended complaint despite the district court granting several extensions of time and allowing Saddozai over one year to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (a district court may dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”); Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing factors that courts must consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order). Saddozai’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied. Saddozai’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied as unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). AFFIRMED. 2 21-16591

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.