Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01373/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01373-3/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 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BERNARD BARNO, CDCR #V69078

Plaintiff,

v.

STUART RYAN, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07-cv-1373 JM (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

AS MOOT [DOC. NO. 31.] 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with a civil rights Complaint

[Doc. No. 1] filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and currently incarcerated at RJ Donovan

Correctional Facility, has filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint solely to

substitute the name of the current director of the California Department of Corrections, John

Dovey, for former director, Defendant J. Woodford. (See Doc. No. 31, Plaintiff’s motion at 2:4-

5.)

Under Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the

substitution of public officers sued in their official capacities, the proper defendant is automatically substituted in as a defendant. Specifically Rule 25(d)(1) states: “An action does not abate

when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns or otherwise ceases to

hold office while the action is pending. The officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a

party. Later proceedings should be in the substituted party’s name, but any misnomer not

affecting the parties’ substantial rights must be disregarded. The court may order substitution at

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 46 Filed 07/09/08 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

2 07cv1373 JM (WMc)

any time, but the absence of such an order does not affect the substitution.” The presence or

absence of a specific substitution order does not alter the fact that an automatic substitution has

already occurred. See e.g. Morales v. Tilton, 465 F. Supp.2d 972, 975 fn.2 (explaining that

while several positions within the California Department of Corrections had changed personnel

during the pendency of the litigation, “each time [a change occurred], the proper Defendants

automatically were substituted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d)(1).”). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 9, 2008

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

Case 3:07-cv-01373-WMC Document 46 Filed 07/09/08 Page 2 of 2