Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00231-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEFFLEFINGER, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-00231 DAD DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

DISMISSING ACTION PURSUANT TO 

RULE 25(A)(1)

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

SERVE C. GRENOT WITH THESE 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Luis Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on February 14, 2013.

Defendants filed a statement of Plaintiff’s death on May 4, 2016, and represented in the 

notice that they served members of Plaintiff’s family in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 4 and 25(a)(1).1 However, Defendants’ notice was not accompanied by any supporting 

evidence. Therefore, on August 11, 2016, the Court ordered Defendants to supplement the notice 

with evidence of proper service. Defendants complied with the order on August 16, 2016.

Defendants’ proofs of service, which they inadvertently failed to file with the Court 

earlier, indicate that Defendants personally served Plaintiff’s successor or representative, A. 

Garcia, on May 7, 2016. Walker Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6. Defendants also attempted service on Plaintiff’s 

 

1

Plaintiff’s wife, Caroline Grenot, informed the Court of Plaintiff’s passing in a letter dated April 21, 2016.

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 70 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 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

2

successors or representatives C. Grenot and D. Rodriguez numerous times, but were not 

successful. Walker Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.

Plaintiff death was suggested upon the record more than ninety days ago, with proper 

service, and no motion for substitution has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).2 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to 

the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and 

Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all 

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) days 

after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir.1991).

The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to serve these Findings and Recommendations on C. 

Grenot, at the address specific in Document 67.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 The Court issued Findings and Recommendations on March 7, 2016, recommending that Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment based on exhaustion be granted in part. Given the notice of Plaintiff’s death, the Findings and 

Recommendations have not been adopted.

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 70 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2