Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02124/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2124

___________

George Kaubisch, as the Guardian * 

of Gregory Kaubisch, * 

* 

Appellant, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of South Dakota.

Doug Weber, Warden; Sioux Valley * 

Hospital Association, Inc.; also known * 

as Sioux Valley Hospital; Dr. Ulises * 

Pesce; John Doe, * 

* 

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 18, 2005

Filed: May 27, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

George Kaubisch, as guardian for Gregory Kaubisch, sued Doug Weber, Sioux

Valley Hospital, Dr. Ulises Pesce, and other unnamed persons under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 seeking damages arising from a beating Gregory Kaubisch received from

another inmate in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. While the suit was pending,

Gregory Kaubisch died from his injuries. After Gregory Kaubisch's death, George

Kaubisch did not file a motion to substitute parties within ninety days as required by

Appellate Case: 04-2124 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908386
1

The Honorable John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District

of South Dakota, presiding with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c)(1). 

-2-

Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court1

 dismissed the

complaint because George Kaubisch did not show excusable neglect for the failure

to timely substitute. George Kaubisch now appeals the dismissal of his complaint. We

affirm.

I. Background

On April 26, 2000, Gregory Kaubisch was severely beaten by his cell mate.

George Kaubisch, as guardian for Gregory Kaubisch, filed this § 1983 civil rights

action seeking damages for the injuries Gregory Kaubisch suffered. Gregory

Kaubisch died from the after effects of his injuries on November 8, 2002. On

November 12, 2002, defense counsel served a Suggestion of Death under Rule

25(a)(1) on counsel for George Kaubisch giving notice of Gregory Kaubisch's death.

On December 3, 2002, George Kaubisch was appointed personal representative for

the estate of Gregory Kaubisch. On March 26, 2003, a motion to amend the complaint

under Rules 15(a) and 15(b), or in the alternative, to add two defendants under Rule

19(a) was filed by George Kaubisch. 

The motion to amend or add parties was preceded by a request from George

Kaubisch to stipulate to the amendment. The defendants rejected the stipulation on

February 11, 2003, on the grounds that the scheduling order deadline for adding

parties and amending the pleadings expired in November 2002. George Kaubisch did

not file a motion for substitution until April 26, 2003, well beyond the time allowed

under Rule 25(a)(1). Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The

district court granted the motions to dismiss finding that George Kaubisch had not

Appellate Case: 04-2124 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908386
2

There is a bit of history regarding the interplay between Rules 25(a) and 6(b).

In Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482, 485–86 (1947), the Court held that Rule 6(b)

did not override the express direction of action to be taken by the court under Rule

25(a)(1), that the complaint be dismissed for failure to substitute within the prescribed

time. However, both Rules 6(b) and 25(a)(1) were amended in 1963 to alleviate the

harsh effects of decisions such as Anderson and the Advisory Committee's Notes to

the 1963 Amendments indicate that the revisions were intended to allow courts to

extend the 90 day period in Rule 25(a)(1) pursuant to amended Rule 6(b). See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6, 25 advisory committee's notes. 

-3-

shown excusable neglect for his failure to timely file the motion to substitute. George

Kaubisch now appeals the dismissal of his complaint.

II. Discussion

Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the substitution of

parties after death, and provides that after death of a party, "the action does not abate.

The death shall be suggested upon the record and the action shall proceed in favor of

or against the surviving parties." Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(2). Rule 25(a)(1) requires "the

motion for substitution . . . [to be] made not later than 90 days after the death is

suggested upon the record by service of a statement of the fact of the death." Fed. R.

Civ. P. 25(a)(1). The rule further provides that if the motion for substitution is not

timely made, then the "action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party." Id. While

the 90 day rule appears to be mandatory, Rule 6(b) authorizes the district court to

exercise its discretion to permit a motion for substitution beyond the time originally

prescribed when the failure to file the motion was the result of excusable neglect. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).2

George Kaubisch makes two arguments for reversal, both of which focus on

the conduct of the defendants. First, he contends that in his amended complaint and

stipulation thereto, he sought to make the proper party substitution and argues that

because the defendants did not object to the substitution provision of the stipulation,

Appellate Case: 04-2124 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908386
-4-

they implicitly consented to the substitution as provided in the stipulation. George

Kaubisch notes that his pleadings following the amended complaint listed him as

personal representative of Gregory Kaubisch's estate rather than as personal

representative of Gregory Kaubisch. This argument fails. The defendants did not sign

any stipulation nor was a stipulation filed and made part of the record. When George

Kaubisch's counsel later sought to amend the complaint by motion, counsel

acknowledged that all defendants had rejected the stipulation. The record shows all

defendants filed separate motions to dismiss for failure to substitute. George

Kaubisch's argument that we should imply an agreement to the substitution is

unsupported by the record. 

Second, George Kaubisch argues that the 90-day period for filing a motion to

substitute was not triggered because the defendants failed to properly serve the

suggestion of death. George Kaubisch contends that under South Dakota law, the

suggestion of death should have been served on George Kaubisch personally rather

than upon his counsel because he is the personal representative of Gregory Kaubisch's

estate. This argument has no merit. George Kaubisch was not appointed as personal

representative until December 8, 2003, nearly a month after the suggestion of death

was served on his counsel. Even assuming that the suggestion of death filed by the

defendants failed to trigger the 90 day period, the district court's dismissal of George

Kaubisch's complaint was not in error. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 25

provide that "a motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the

representative of the deceased party without awaiting the suggestion of death." Fed.

R. Civ. P. 25 advisory committee's notes. Furthermore, "a party interested in

substitution under the amended rule should not assume that he can rest indefinitely

awaiting the suggestion of death before he makes his motion to substitute." Id.

"The determination as to what sort of neglect is considered excusable is 'an

equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's

Appellate Case: 04-2124 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908386
-5-

own omission.'" In re Harlow Fay, Inc., 993 F.2d 1351, 1352 (8th Cir. 1993) (quoting

Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). George

Kaubisch concedes, and we agree, that the misapplication or misreading of the plain

language of Rule 25 does not establish excusable neglect. See In re Cosmopolitan

Aviation Corp., 763 F.2d 507, 515 (2d Cir. 1985) ("[t]he excusable neglect standard

can never be met by a showing of inability or refusal to read and comprehend the

plain language of the federal rules"). We hold the district court did not abuse its

discretion in failing to extend the time to file the motion for substitution. 

IV. Conclusion

We affirm the district court's dismissal of this case as to the deceased party.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2124 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Entry ID: 1908386