Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00828/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00828-4/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HILL,

Plaintiff, 

v.

RACKLEY, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00828-KJM-CMK 

ORDER 

This action was brought by a state prisoner proceeding without counsel asserting 

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to Eastern 

District of California local rules. On December 1, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary 

judgment, which plaintiff did not oppose. ECF No. 20. On July 20, 2015, the magistrate judge 

filed findings and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion be granted on the 

ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit. ECF No. 22. On 

September 30, 2015, this court declined to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

instead dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for 

lack of prosecution. ECF No. 23. The court clerk entered judgment for defendants pursuant to 

the court’s order, and served the court’s order and judgment on plaintiff by mail. 

Case 2:13-cv-00828-KJM-CMK Document 25 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 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

2

On November 2, 2015, the court received notice that its order (ECF No. 23) and 

judgment (ECF No. 24) were returned as undeliverable mail. In conducting its own check of 

records related to inmates, the court learned that plaintiff has died.

Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the mechanics for 

moving forward after a party to civil litigation has died. As is relevant here, that rule provides: 

(1) Substitution if the Claim Is Not Extinguished. 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. 

***

(3) Service. A motion to substitute, together with a notice of 

hearing, must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and on 

nonparties as provided in Rule 4. A statement noting death must be 

served in the same manner. Service may be made in any judicial 

district.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a). In Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (1978), the Supreme Court held 

that the law of the forum state is “the principal reference point in determining survival of civil 

rights actions” under section 1983. Id. at 590; see also Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S. 693, 

703 n.14 (1973) (noting that under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, state survivorship statutes may allow the 

survival of actions brought under § 1983). Under California law, a cause of action against a 

person is generally not lost by reason of the person’s death. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.20(a). 

The decedent’s personal representative or, if there is none, the decedent’s successor in interest 

may continue to litigate the action. Id. § 377.31. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 25(a) requires two affirmative steps to trigger 

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. Thus, a party may be served the 

suggestion of death by service on his or her attorney, while 

nonparty 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. 

Case 2:13-cv-00828-KJM-CMK Document 25 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal citations omitted). Under Barlow,

and given the circumstances of this case involving an inmate in state custody, defendants have 

some obligation to identify plaintiff’s representative or successor and serve the notice of death on 

that party.

Here, a formal notice of plaintiff’s death has not been filed with the court, nor has 

plaintiff’s personal representative or successor in interest been served. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED that, within 30 days of the date of this order, defendants shall: 

1. File a formal notice of plaintiff’s death with the court and serve that notice on 

plaintiff’s personal representative or successor in interest; or 

2. Inform the court of the steps defendants have taken to locate plaintiff’s personal 

representative or successor in interest and explain whether such person can be located. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 12, 2015. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-00828-KJM-CMK Document 25 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 3