Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00397/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00397-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stacey Suzanne Gruenberg, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0397-PHX-SMM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Stacey Suzanne Gruenberg was a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action has been pending since February 2006.

(See Doc. #1.) On September 13, 2007, Defendants notified the Court that Plaintiff was

deceased, and later confirmed that she died on July 13, 2007. (Doc. ##63, 69.) The Court

issued an Order notifying Defendants that the 90-day period set forth in Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 25 had not been triggered by their notice because it did not constitute a formal

suggestion of death. (Doc. #70.) 

Rule 25(a)(1) provides that if a party dies, unless substitution is made within 90 days

of the service of a suggestion of death, the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). The objective of the suggestion of death set forth in Rule 25(a)(1)

is to alert nonparties to the consequences of the death of a party in a pending lawsuit so that

they may act if they desire to preserve the decedent’s claim. Fariss v. Lynchburg Foundry,

769 F.2d 958, 962 (4th Cir. 1985). The Rule establishes a procedure that protects those who

have an interest in the litigation and the authority to act on behalf of the decedent by

Case 2:06-cv-00397-SMM-DKD Document 73 Filed 05/07/08 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

- 2 -

permitting substitution for the deceased party without unduly burdening the surviving party.

Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233-34 (9th Cir. 1994).

Under Rule 25(a)(1), a party must (1) formally suggest the death of the party upon the

record and (2) serve the nonparty representatives of the deceased party with the suggestion

of death in the manner provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 for the service of a

summons. Id. at 233. The 90-day period in which a motion for substitution can be made is

not triggered until both of these steps are taken. Id. 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order, defense counsel submitted an affidavit describing her

efforts to obtain information on Plaintiff’s successor or representative from the Arizona

Department of Corrections (ADC) for the purpose of effecting proper service under Rule 25

and Rule 4. (Doc. #71.) Defense counsel attests that no next-of-kin or representative can be

identified. (Id., Brandon Aff. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) 

There appears to be no Ninth Circuit case law applying Rule 25 in those instances

when no nonparty representatives can be ascertained and thereby served with the notice of

suggestion of death. Because that was not the situation in Barlow, the Court declined to

address it. Barlow, 39 F.3d at 234. Some courts have held that the suggestion of death must

include the identity of the representative only when the notice is filed by the representative

or successor of the estate; it does not apply when another party to the action files and serves

the notice. In re Cardoza, 111 B.R. 906, 909 (S.D. Cal. 1990); Yonofsky v. Wernick, 362

F. Supp. 1005, 1012 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). The Fourth Circuit, however, requires that in cases

where it may be difficult to ascertain who the appropriate party is, the surviving party should

shoulder some of the burden in determining who to serve under Rule 25, rather than letting

the absence of notice cause the action to terminate. Fariss, 769 F.2d at 962. 

One out-of-circuit district court found that due to the difficulty in finding a

representative who could be appointed where a pro se prisoner-plaintiff died, the defendants

were only required to serve the statement of death upon the deceased prisoner at his last

known correctional facility address to trigger the 90-day period. Chobot v. Powers, 169

F.R.D. 263, 267 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). The district court held that requiring defendants to do

Case 2:06-cv-00397-SMM-DKD Document 73 Filed 05/07/08 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

- 3 -

more would be unduly burdensome. Id. (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust

Co., 339 U.S. 306, 317-18 (1950) (“impracticable and extended searches are not required in

the name of due process”).

Here, Defendants were required to take on some burden in locating Plaintiff’s

representative or successor. (See Doc. #70.) Their inquires to the ADC have failed to reveal

any next-of-kin or an executor of Plaintiff’s estate. (Doc. #71.) The Court will not require

Defendants to do more.

Because more than 6 months have elapsed since Defendants noticed the Court of

Plaintiff’s death (Doc. #69), and because Plaintiff died approximately 10 months ago and

there has been no inquiry into the case by a potential successor, the Court will dismiss the

action under Rule 25(a). But given the circumstances, which include the inability to locate

a representative and the lack of an adjudication on the merits, the dismissal will be without

prejudice. Cf. Ahmed v. United States, 147 F.3d 791, 797 (8th Cir. 1998) (noting that

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice because it does not

involve an adjudication on the merits).

IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 25(a). The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 6th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00397-SMM-DKD Document 73 Filed 05/07/08 Page 3 of 3