Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05389/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05389-15/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

DARRYLE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARTHUR CALDERON et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-05389-LJO-DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 104)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE

AND RE-FILE MOTION WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Darryle Williams(“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 7, 2007, defendants Yin, O’Brien, Helmer,

Klingenberg and Waggoner filed a Suggestion of Death for defendant John Moor. (Doc. 65). On

June 1, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to substitute the estate of John Moor as a defendant in this

action. (Doc. 79). By court order dated October 15, 2007, the court held that the ninety day period

to substitute had not be triggered 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 defendant Moor (Doc. 88), and plaintiff’s motion was subsequently disregarded

as moot. (Doc. 111). Plaintiff and defendants have both filed objections to the court’s March 17,

2008 order (Docs. 113, 114).

On November 16, 2007, defendants filed proof of service of the Suggestion of Death on

Consuelo Moor, widow of John Moor. Plaintiff then filed a renewed motion for substitution on

January 28, 2008, within the 90 day deadline prescribed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Case 1:03-cv-05389-LJO -DLB Document 122 Filed 05/02/08 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

25(a)(1) (Doc. 104). 

Rule 25(a)(3) states as follows: “A motion to substitute...must be served on the parties as

provided in Rule 5 and on nonparties as provided in Rule 4...”. Although the rule does not delineate

the nonparties to be served, the successor or representative of deceased must be served in accordance

with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Barlow v. Ground, 39 F3d 234 (9 Cir.). th

As plaintiff did not file proof of service of his Motion for Substitution of Parties on the

successor or representative of deceased John Moor, plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.

The court will grant plaintiff an additional 30 days from the date of this order to properly serve the

successor or representative of deceased John Moor in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and to re-file his motion for substitution of parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 1, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05389-LJO -DLB Document 122 Filed 05/02/08 Page 2 of 2