Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757-22/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

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ`,

Plaintiff,

v.

COX, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

SUBMIT PROOF OF SERVICE

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 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.) These individuals are plaintiff’s wife, brother, and daughter, respectively. (Id.) 

Rule 25(a)(1) provides for the dismissal of this action if a motion for substitution is not 

made within ninety days after service of a statement noting plaintiff’s death. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

25(a)(1). Two things are required of a party for the running of the ninety-day period to 

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 86 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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

3

commence: a party must 1) formally suggest the death of the party on the record, and 2) serve the 

suggestion of death on the other parties and nonparty successors or representatives. Barlow v. 

Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, a party may be served with the suggestion of 

death by service on his or her attorney as provided for in Rule 5, while non-party successors or 

representatives of the deceased party must be served the suggestion of death in the manner 

provided for in Rule 4 for the service of a summons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3); Barlow, 39 F.3d at 

232–34. 

Rule 4 states a summons may be served either by “following state law for serving a 

summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court 

is located or where service is made,” or by doing any of the following: (1) “delivering a copy of 

the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally”; (2) “leaving a copy of each at the 

individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who 

resides there”; or (3) “delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law 

to receive service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). In California, service of a summons may be 

effected by personal delivery, California Civil Procedure Code § 415.10, by leaving a copy of the 

summons at an office or residence with an appropriate person and thereafter mailing another copy 

to the same individual at the same address, § 415.20, by mail, § 415.30, or by publication, 

§ 415.50. Additionally, failing these methods, a court in California may order a summons be 

served “in a manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be 

served.” Cal. Civ. P. Code § 413.30.

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 represented service had previously been effected on May 7, 2016, and that more 

than ninety days had elapsed since that service. (Id.) Therefore, dismissal of the case was 

requested. (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. In actuality, however, only one of these individuals, Amelia Garcia, was served. 

(Doc. No. 85 at 4.) Defendants “proof of proper service” instead includes a declaration of nonCase 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 86 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 3
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

4

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

Defendants neglected to file any documents reflecting the status of service on the aforementioned 

D. Rodriguez.1

Defendants previously identified the individuals upon whom service of the notice was 

required, and defendants are therefore directed to effectuate proper service on all of those 

individuals in order for the ninety-day period in which plaintiff’s successors may seek 

substitution to start running. See Barlow, 39 F.3d at 233. If defendants are unable to effect 

personal service, despite repeated attempts, they may complete service via alternate means, as 

identified above. If none of the means of completing service specifically listed can be completed 

by defendants here, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure incorporate a California statute which 

allows for the court to order service in any manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice to 

the person being served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e); Cal. Civ. P. Code § 413.30. Defendants may 

seek leave from the court to effectuate service in such a manner if they are able to demonstrate 

they are unable to complete service in one of the ways set forth in the governing rules and state

statutes identified above.

For the reasons set forth above, defendants are directed to supplement their previously 

filed notice with evidence of proper service upon both Caroline Grenot and David Rodriguez 

within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff’s wife, Caroline Grenot, and plaintiff’s brother, David Rodriguez, both of whom appear 

to be non-party successors or representatives upon which service is required.

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 86 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 3