Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02824/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02824-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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 

FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-02824-TLN-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Currently before 

the court is the question of who, if anyone, will be substituted for plaintiff following his recent 

death. 

On October 9, 2015, the court issued an order denying an amended motion for substitution 

filed by Frederick Marc Cooley and Celestein Lavonda Tyson, the biological parents of the nowdeceased plaintiff Frederick Marceles Cooley.1

 ECF No. 23. The court’s order explained that the 

Parents could not be substituted for the Decedent because they are not Decedent’s successors in 

interest. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a) (“A motion for substitution may be made by any party 

or by the decedent's successor or representative.” (emphasis added)). While the Parents 

 

1

 In light of the similarities between the names of the now-deceased plaintiff and Frederick Marc 

Cooley, the court will refer to the former as “Decedent” and the latter as “Mr. Cooley” for the 

remainder of this order. The court will also refer to Ms. Tyson and Mr. Cooley collectively as 

“the Parents.” 

Case 2:14-cv-02824-TLN-AC Document 24 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 5
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

purported to be Decedent’s successors in interest, the documents they submitted along with their 

motion established that they are not. ECF No. 23. Under the California Probate Code, parents of 

a decedent who died intestate (without a will) inherit only if the decedent has no surviving 

spouse/domestic partner and no issue (children). Cal. Prob. Code § 6402(a)–(b). The 

declarations of Mr. Cooley and Ms. Tyson, as well as the report of an investigator retained by Mr. 

Cooley to investigate Decedent’s affairs, indicated that Decedent died without a will and was not 

married at the time of his death, but that he is survived by a three-year-old son, Frederick 

Marceles Cooley, Jr. ECF No. 18 at Exhibit A, B, and C. Because Decedent is survived by a 

child, his parents inherit nothing. Instead, Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. is Decedent’s proper 

successor in interest. Accordingly, the court denied the Parents’ motion for substitution because 

they are not Decedent’s successors in interest. ECF No. 23. 

Nevertheless, because Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. is a minor, the court explained that 

Mr. Cooley could be appointed guardian ad litem as long as Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. filed a 

motion seeking appointment as such. ECF No. 23 at 2. That motion would have to be filed by an 

attorney representing Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. Id. (citing Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 

F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[W]e hold that a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on 

behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.”)). The court gave Frederick Marceles 

Cooley, Jr. until November 8, 2015 to file such a motion, with a warning that failure to do so 

would result in the dismissal of this case. Id. at 3. Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. has yet to file a 

motion to appoint a guardian ad litem and Mr. Cooley has not otherwise responded to the court’s 

order. 

Normally, in light of Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr.’s failure to file a motion to be 

appointed guardian ad litem and timely seek substitution, the court would recommend that this 

case be dismissed. However, events have transpired in another case before this court that 

convince the undersigned a second extension of time is necessary. Frederick Marceles Cooley v. 

City of Vallejo, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00620-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. 2015) (hereinafter “the 

Judge Newman Case”) is another matter in which Decedent asserts the City of Vallejo and 

Case 2:14-cv-02824-TLN-AC Document 24 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 5
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

members of its police department arrested him with excessive force.23 A review of the docket in 

that case reveals many similarities in how the search for a substitute to Decedent has progressed. 

When the court was notified of Decedent’s death in the Judge Newman Case it issued an 

order telling the parties that the case would be dismissed unless a valid motion for substitution 

was filed within ninety days. NECF No. 57.4 Mr. Cooley filed an original and an amended 

motion for substitution, NECF Nos. 58, 63, but the court denied those motions there for 

essentially the same reasons it denied them in this case, compare NECF Nos. 62, 65, with ECF 

Nos. 17, 23. After denying Mr. Cooley’s amended motion for substitution, the court ordered any 

motion for substitution by Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. to be filed by September 3, 2015. 

NECF No. 65. The court explained, as it did in this case, that if Mr. Cooley wished to be 

involved he would have to be appointed Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr.’s guardian ad litem. Id. 

No motion to appoint a guardian ad litem or amended motion for substitution was filed, and so 

the court recommended that the case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Fule 25(a)(1). NECF No. 

68. 

However, Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr.’s mother (Jennifer Johnson)5 filed objections to 

the findings and recommendations on October 22, 2015, arguing that the ninety-day period had 

yet to run because the proper successor in interest was never served with a notice of death. NECF 

No. 69. In an order responding to Ms. Johnson’s objections filed on October 29, 2015, the court 

granted a ninety-day extension within which a motion for substitution and a motion to appoint a 

guardian ad litem could be filed by Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. Id. 

 

2

 The arrest at issue in the Judge Newman Case is not the same arrest at issue in this case. 

3

 The court hereby takes judicial notice of the filings in the Judge Newman Case. Under Rule 

201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that 

is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is either (1) generally known or “(2) can be 

accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The filings in the Judge Newman Case can be determined 

“from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Id. 

4

 Citations in this order to docket entries in the Judge Newman Case are denoted “NECF,” 

instead of “ECF.” 

5

 Ms. Johnson’s first name is spelled with two “n”s in some places and one “n” in others in her 

objections. NECF No. 69. The court spells Ms. Johnson’s name with two “n”s throughout this 

order for the sake of consistency. 

Case 2:14-cv-02824-TLN-AC Document 24 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Rule 25(a)(1) provides that: 

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

may order substitution 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 a 

statement of the fact of death as provided herein for the service of 

the motion, the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, in order for the ninety-day period to commence 

“a party must formally suggest the death of the party on the record” and “the suggesting party 

must serve other parties and nonparty successors or representatives of the deceased with a 

suggestion of death in the same manner as required for service of the motion to substitute.” 

Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994); see also McNeal v. Evert, No. 2:05-CV-441-

GEB-EFB, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49133, at *4–6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2015) (M.J. Brennan). 

Parties may be served in accordance with Federal Rule 5, while nonparty successors and 

representatives must be served in accordance with Federal Rule 4. Barlow, 39 F.3d at 233. 

Service of process upon an “infant” or “incompetent person” under Rule 4 is governed 

solely by the law of the state in which the service is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(g). Under California 

law “[a] summons may be served on a minor by delivering a copy of the summons and of the 

complaint to his parent, guardian, conservator, or similar fiduciary, or, if no such person can be 

found with reasonable diligence, to any person having the care or control of such minor or with 

whom he resides or by whom he is employed.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.60. Defendants have 

not filed proof of service upon Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. or his guardian, Jennifer Johnson. 

In accordance with the foregoing, the court will order defendants to serve a suggestion of 

death upon Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. and Ms. Johnson. Defendants must file proof of 

service upon Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. and Ms. Johnson within fourteen days. See Local 

Rule 135(c). Once defendants have done so, Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. will have ninety days 

to file a motion for substitution and motion to appoint a guardian ad litem. Failure to do either of 

the foregoing will result in the undersigned recommending that this case be dismissed. 

Case 2:14-cv-02824-TLN-AC Document 24 Filed 11/23/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

In summary, Ms. Johnson’s objections in the Judge Newman Case show that to trigger the 

running of Rule 25’s ninety-day deadline defendants must first serve Frederick Marceles Cooley, 

Jr. with a suggestion of death. Accordingly, the court will order defendants to file proof of 

personal service upon Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. and Ms. Johnson within fourteen days. 

Once defendants have done so Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr. will have ninety days to file a 

motion to appoint a guardian ad litem and a motion for substitution. 

In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Defendants shall file proofs of service of a suggestion of death upon Frederick 

Marceles Cooley, Jr. and Ms. Johnson within fourteen days of the service of this order; 

2. Any motion for substitution by Frederick Marceles Cooley, Jr., accompanied by a 

motion to appoint a guardian ad litem, shall be filed by a licensed attorney within ninety days of 

the service of the suggestion of death in accordance with the terms of this order; 

3. If a proper and timely motion for substitution is not filed the court will issue findings 

and recommendations for dismissal of this action; and 

4. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on Jennifer Johnson at 29 Frey 

Place, Vallejo, CA 94590 (the address listed on the objections filed by Ms. Johnson in the Judge 

Newman Case). 

DATED: November 20, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-02824-TLN-AC Document 24 Filed 11/23/15 Page 5 of 5