Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-00517/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-00517-2/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP PULLUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER RYAN TAJAGUE,

1

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-00517-YGR (PR)

ORDER TO FILE MOTION TO 

SUBSTITUTE DUE TO DEATH OF 

PLAINTIFF; INSTRUCTIONS TO 

CLERK

Plaintiff, who was formerly in custody at Santa Rita Jail (“SRJ”), filed a pro se civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 presenting a variety of allegations that stemmed from an 

incident on October 19, 2017 at Valley Care Medical Center in Pleasanton, California. Dkt. 1 at 3. 

In an Order dated December 19, 2018, the Court found that Plaintiff had stated a 

cognizable Fourth Amendment claim for the use of excessive force against Defendants Ryan 

Tajague and Officer John Doe. See Dkt. 16 at 4-5. The Court also found that Plaintiff’s claims 

challenging/implicating the validity of his arrest could also proceed against Defendant Tajague. 

See id. The Court ordered service of the complaint on Defendant Tajague, and the Clerk mailed a 

Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of 

Service of Summons, and a copy of the complaint to Defendant Tajague.

To date, Defendant Tajague has not yet waived service of the summons by submitting the 

waiver form. Instead, the record shows that the attorney for Defendant Tajague and the City of 

Pleasanton, Sheila D. Crawford, Esq., has filed with the Court a suggestion of death of the litigant, 

stating that the Alameda County Sherriff’s Office has informed her that Plaintiff died on 

November 27, 2018. Dkt. 19 at 1; Crawford Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; Dkt. 19-1 at 4. Attorney Crawford has 

also submitted a declaration indicating that on March 27, 2019, she served Plaintiff’s mother, 

Linda Teasley-Pearson,2 with a copy of the Suggestion of Death upon the Record. Crawford Decl. 

 

1 The Court has corrected the spelling of Defendant Tajague’s last name, which was 

originally misspelled as “Tujague” in prior orders. Compare Dkt. 19 at 1 with Dkt. 16 at 1-2.

2 Ms. Teasley-Pearson has been identified by Attorney Crawford as Plaintiff’s mother after 

Case 4:18-cv-00517-YGR Document 20 Filed 05/15/19 Page 1 of 3
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

¶ 7; Dkt. 19-1 at 6.

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

that:

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

substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be 

made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative.

If the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement 

noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be 

dismissed.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Because it is not clear whether Plaintiff’s claims could survive his death 

if pursued by his successors or representatives, the Court will not dismiss this matter at this time. 

However, in the absence of a party to prosecute this case, it will be dismissed. 

As explained above, Defendant Tajague (through the aforementioned actions of Attorney 

Crawford) has triggered the running of the 90-day period because Defendant Tajague has served 

the notice of death upon Plaintiff’s mother, who is assumed to be his representative or successor. 

See Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[Rule 25] requires two affirmative steps 

in order to trigger the running of the 90-day period. First, a party must formally suggest the death 

of the party upon the record. Second, 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.”). If no motion for substitution is filed within 90 

days of service of the statement of death, which was served on March 27, 2019, this matter will be 

dismissed by the Court on the ninety-first day, which is on June 26, 2019.

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff’s mother, Ms. Teasley-Pearson, or another 

legal successor or representative to file, no later than June 25, 2019 (which is 90-days after March 

27, 2019), a motion to substitute in compliance with Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The Court stresses that if no motion to substitute is filed in compliance with Rule 

25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, then this matter will be dismissed on June 26, 

2019 without further notice.

 

that attorney “conducted a reasonable investigation as to a legal representative of [Plaintiff’s] 

estate or an appropriate successor upon which to serve notice of . . . Suggestion of Death Upon the 

Record Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 25(a)(1) . . . .” Crawford Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.

Case 4:18-cv-00517-YGR Document 20 Filed 05/15/19 Page 2 of 3
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

The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this Order upon: 

Linda Teasley-Pearson

4777 Grouse Run Drive

Apt. 107

Stockton, CA 95207.

The Clerk shall also record such service on the docket in this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

May 15, 2019

Case 4:18-cv-00517-YGR Document 20 Filed 05/15/19 Page 3 of 3