Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01488/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01488-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GRIMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHY CHISUM,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01488-WHO (PR) 

ORDER VACATING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE; 

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO 

SUBMIT STATUS REPORT

This order addresses the questions raised by the death of the sole defendant, Kathy 

Chisum. 

Here is the procedural history of this action. In this federal civil rights action filed 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Joseph Grimes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, stated 

a cognizable claim against Chisum, an employee of Salinas Valley State Prison. Chisum, 

acting through her attorney, waived service of the complaint in August 2016. (Dkt. No. 

12.) Then, in September, Chisum’s attorney filed a “Suggestion of Death,” which stated 

that Chisum had died on or about August 28 or 29. (Dkt. No. 16.) 

 Chisum’s death affects this litigation in four crucial ways. First, Grimes will have 

to take specific actions if he wishes to pursue his claims against the decedent’s estate. The 

law of the forum state determines whether a section 1983 action survives or is extinguished 

upon the death of a party. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a); Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 

Case 3:16-cv-01488-WHO Document 21 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

592-95 (1978). Under California law, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a cause 

of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death, but survives 

subject to the applicable limitations period.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.20. “Subject to 

Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing 

creditor claims, a cause of action against a decedent that survives may be asserted against 

the decedent’s personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the 

decedent’s successor in interest.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.40. 

The introductory clause in section 377.40 is critical: a plaintiff must comply with 

the claims-presentation requirements of California Probate Code § 9000 et seq., or he will 

be unable to pursue his cause of action against the decedent’s personal representative. See

Cal. Prob. Code § 9370(a) (“An action or proceeding pending against the decedent at the 

time of death may not be continued against the decedent’s personal representative unless 

all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) A claim is first filed as provided in this 

part; (2) The claim is rejected in whole or in part; (3) Within three months after the notice 

of rejection is given, the plaintiff applies to the court in which the action or proceeding is 

pending for an order to substitute the personal representative in the action or proceeding. 

This paragraph applies only if the notice of rejection contains a statement that the plaintiff 

has three months within which to apply for an order for substitution.”); id. at § 9370(b) 

(“No recovery shall be allowed in the action against property in the decedent’s estate 

unless proof is made of compliance with this section.”). 

In sum, Grimes’s claims can survive the death of the defendant (other than a claim 

for punitive damages, see Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.42), but he must comply with the 

claims presentation requirements of the California Probate Code if he wants to pursue this 

action against Chisum’s personal representative. This Court cannot relieve him of those 

obligations or assist him in satisfying them. 

Second, a proper defendant will need to be substituted in place of Chisum. After 

Grimes complies with the state probate code requirements, he will need to file a motion to 

substitute a proper defendant in place of Chisum. “If a party dies and the claim is not 

Case 3:16-cv-01488-WHO Document 21 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

thereby extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper parties . . . Unless the 

motion for substitution is made not later than 90 days after the death is suggested upon the

record . . . the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a). 

A “proper party” under Rule 25(a)(1) is the legal representative of the decedent, such as 

the executor of the decedent’s will or the administrator of her estate. See Mallonee v. 

Fahey, 200 F.2d 918, 919-20 (9th Cir. 1953). Grimes will have to find the name of 

Chisum’s legal representative and then file a motion for substitution under Rule 25. 

Again, Grimes is responsible for accomplishing this. The Court cannot do so on his 

behalf.

Third, the requirements to start the 90-day period under Rule 25(a)(1) in which to 

file a motion for substitution have not been met. Rule 25(a)(1) requires that (1) “a party 

must formally suggest the death of the party upon the record,” Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 

231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994); and (2) the “non-party successors or representatives of the 

deceased party must be served the suggestion of death in the manner provided by Rule 4 

for the service of a summons,” id. The first has been met by the filing of the Suggestion of 

Death. (Dkt. No. 16.) The second has not. There is no indication that the non-party 

successor or representative has been served in any manner, let alone a manner provided by 

Federal Rule 4 for the service of summons. 

Fourth, it is unclear whether Chisum’s attorney in this action continues to have 

authority to do anything on behalf of her deceased client. See Sullivan v. Dunne, 198 Cal. 

183, 192 (Cal. 1926) (it is “well recognized by the authorities that the law of principal and 

agent is generally applicable to the relation of attorney and client . . . and that the insanity 

or incapacity of the client will, therefore operate as a termination of the authority of the 

attorney”). This issue should be resolved before the attorney files a dispositive motion.

In light of these concerns, the Court orders the following: 

1. The briefing schedule is now VACATED. 

2. No later than January 17, 2017, defense counsel and Grimes shall each file a 

status report of no more than 5 pages addressing these matters: (a) discuss whether 

Case 3:16-cv-01488-WHO Document 21 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

defense counsel has any continuing authority to act on behalf of the defendant or the 

defendant’s interests in this action; (b) provide the name and contact information for the 

successor or representative of Chisum, if known; (c) provide the name of the county and 

state in which Chisum died; and (d) discuss whether this action should be stayed to wait 

for Grimes to comply with the claims-presentation requirements of the California Probate 

Code. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2016

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01488-WHO Document 21 Filed 11/18/16 Page 4 of 4