Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00076/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00076-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERMAINE SANDERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. NEUBARTH, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00076-AWI-SMS P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOLLOWING PLAINTIFF’S DEATH

(Docs. 23, 26, and 27)

Plaintiff Germaine Sanders (“plaintiff”) 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 has been pending since

January 19, 2005. On July 24, 2006, defendants filed a statement of fact of plaintiff’s death on the

record, and on July 31, 2006, the court issued an order notifying defendants that the ninety-day

period set forth in Rule 25 had not been triggered by defendants’ notice because there was no

declaration of service or other proof reflecting that there had been proper service of the suggestion

of death on the nonparty successors or representatives of plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25. On August

15, 2006, defendants filed a proof of service stating that plaintiff’s wife, Radiant Sanders, was

personally served defendants’ statement of fact of plaintiff’s death on the record on August 9, 2006.

Rule 25(a)(1) provides:

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

Case 1:05-cv-00076-LJO -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 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 Defendants submitted evidence that Mrs. Sanders is plaintiff’s next of kin and successor in interest. (Doc. 1

27.) 

2

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.

In order for the ninety-day period for substitution to be triggered, a party must formally suggest the

death of the party upon the record and 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1); Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir.

1994). Thus, a party may be served the suggestion of death by service on his or her attorney, Fed.

R. Civ. P. 5(b), while 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. Barlow v.

Ground, 39 F.3d at 232-234. Rule 25 requires dismissal absent a motion for substitution within the

ninety-day period only if the statement of death was properly served. Unicorn Tales, Inc., v.

Bannerjee, 138 F.3d 467, 469-471 (2d. Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff’s wife was personally served with defendants’ statement of fact of plaintiff’s death

on the record on August 9, 2006, and the ninety-day period expired on November 7, 2006. Because

1

no motion for substitution was filed on or before November 13, 2006, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), the court

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25(a).

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00076-LJO -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2