Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00381/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00381-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY ANDRE LACY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

H. TYSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-00381-LJO-GSA-PC 

 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 74.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

THIRTY DAYS TO FILE RULE 25

MOTION

Gary Andre Lacy ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on the Second Amended

Complaint, filed on April 28, 2009, against defendants Correctional Officers R. Reyna, T. Reyna, and

N. Correa; Correctional Sergeants J. Peacock, M. Bremnar, and M. Brookwalter; Captain H. Tyson;

Medical Technician Assistant (MTA) Aspetitia; and Doctor I. Patel; on Plaintiff's claims for excessive

force, retaliation, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. 

1

On March 31, 2011, the Marshals Service notified the Court that they were unable to serve

process on defendant R. Reyna because the defendant is deceased. (Doc. 67.) On September 7, 2011,

the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why defendant R. Reyna should not be

Defendants Dill and Heanacho were dismissed by the Court on August 27, 2009. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff's claims for

1

equal protection, and for retaliation against defendant Dill, were also dismissed by the Court, for failure to state a claim. Id.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00381-LJO-EPG Document 81 Filed 10/06/11 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

dismissed from this action based on failure to serve process. (Doc. 74.) On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff

filed a response to the order, objecting to the dismissal of defendant R. Reyna and requesting thirty days

in which to file and serve a Rule 25 motion substituting defendant R. Reyna's estate as defendant. (Doc.

80.)

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days to file a Rule 25 motion. Rule

25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may ordersubstitution

of the proper parties. The motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the

successors or representatives of the deceased party and, together with the notice of

hearing, shall be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and upon persons not parties

in the manner provided in Rule 4 for the service of a summons, and may be served in any

judicial district. Unless the motion for substitution is made not later than 90 days after

the death is suggested upon the record by service of statement of the fact of the death as

provided for herein for the service of the motion, the action shall be dismissed as to the

deceased party.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Under Rule 25(a)(1), any party may file a motion for substitution, which must

be served on all parties as provided in Rule 5 and upon persons not parties in the manner provided in

Rule 4 for the service of a summons. Thus, parties may be served by service on their attorney, Fed. R.

Civ. P. 5(b), but non-party successors or representatives of the deceased party must be served in the

manner provided byRule 4 for the service of a summons. See Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 232-234

(9th Cir. 1994). 

To proceed with a motion for substitution, Plaintiff must provide proof of service of the motion

for substitution upon the other parties to this action and the successors or representatives of R. Reyna,

as required byRule 25(a)(1). Plaintiff requests assistance bythe Legal Affairs Division of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and the United States Marshal in identifying

and serving the successors or representatives of defendant R. Reyna's estate. However, such assistance

is not a function of the Legal Affairs Division of the CDCR or the United States Marshals Service, and

it is Plaintiff's responsibility to identify and locate R. Reyna's heirs or representatives. Plaintiff is also

responsible to arrange for service of the motion for substitution. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status does

not entitle him to assistance free of charge by the United States Marshal for service of the motion for

substitution. 

2

Case 1:07-cv-00381-LJO-EPG Document 81 Filed 10/06/11 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

Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days in which to file and serve a Rule 25 motion pursuant to this

order. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of defendant R. Reyna from this action without further

notice.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court's order to show cause, entered on September 9, 2011, is DISCHARGED;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file and

serve a Rule 25 motion; and

3. Plaintiff's failure to file a Rule 25 motion pursuant to this order will result in the

dismissal of defendant R. Reyna from this action without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 5, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-00381-LJO-EPG Document 81 Filed 10/06/11 Page 3 of 3