Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757-24/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 V. RODRIGUEZ,,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR DEPT. OF REVIEW BOARD, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH

PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL

RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 25(A)(1), AND

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 

CLOSE THE CASE

(Doc. No. 81, 85)

Plaintiff, Luis Valenzuela Rodriguez, was a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on 

plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) on claims of excessive use of force in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment against defendants Terrell and Cavazos, and retaliation in violation of the 

First Amendment against defendants Cavazos, Cox, and Terrell. (Doc. No. 69 at 4.) On May 4, 

2016, defendants filed a notice of plaintiff’s death on the record pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 25(a), noting that “[a] copy of this notice is being served on C. Grenot, D. Rodriguez 

and A. Garcia in accordance with Rule 25(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Doc. 

No. 81 at 2.) The identified individuals are the deceased plaintiff’s wife, brother, and daughter, 

respectively. (Id.)

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 90 Filed 01/05/17 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

On August 25, 2016, defendants filed a supplement to their notice of plaintiff’s death, 

which purportedly included “proof of proper service” on “[p]laintiff’s next of kin.” (Doc. No. 

85.) This filing requested dismissal of this action based upon the representation that service had 

previously been completed on May 7, 2016, and that more than ninety days had elapsed since that 

service. (Id.) While not affirmatively stating as much, the filing suggested that each of the three 

individuals who were previously identified as being served a copy of the notice had, in fact, been 

served. (Id.) In actuality, however, only one of these individuals, Amelia Garcia, had been 

served. (Doc. No. 85 at 4.) Defendants’ “proof of proper service” instead included a declaration 

of non-service regarding Caroline Grenot, demonstrating she was not served. (Doc. No. 85 at 3.) 

Moreover, defendants did not file any documents reflecting the status of service of the notice on 

the aforementioned D. Rodriguez. 

As a result of these deficiencies, defendants were directed to effectuate proper service on 

non-party successors or representatives of plaintiff in order to commence the running of the 

ninety-day period for their substitution into this action. (Doc. No. 86) (citing Barlow v. Ground, 

39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994)). On September 29, 2016, defendants submitted evidence that 

plaintiff’s wife, Caroline Grenot, was personally served with the Notice of Death on September 

14, 2016. (Doc. No. 87.) Under California law, plaintiff’s wife is the successor to his claims in 

this action. See Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 377.3; Cal. Prob. Code §§ 6401, 6402.

More than ninety days have now lapsed from the date service was properly effected on 

Caroline Grenot, the deceased plaintiff’s wife, and she has neither filed a motion to substitute into 

this action under Rule 25(a)(1), nor contacted this court in any manner. 

Accordingly, this action is action is hereby dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the 

Court is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 90 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 2