Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00231-15/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JACK HEFFLEFINGER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT 

PROOF OF SERVICE

(Doc. No. 70)

Plaintiff was a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

A notice of plaintiff’s death was placed on the court’s record by his wife, Caroline Grenot,

on April 25, 2016, in which Ms. Grenot requested information regarding continuation of the suit 

on behalf of plaintiff’s estate. (Doc. No. 67.) On May 4, 2016, defendants filed a notice of 

plaintiff’s death with the court, representing that a “copy of this notice is being served on C. 

Grenot, D. Rodriguez and A. Garcia in accordance with Rule 25(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.” (Doc. No. 66 at 2.) The individuals identified by defendants in the notice filed 

with the court are, respectively, plaintiff’s wife (Caroline Grenot), his brother (D. Rodriguez), and 

his daughter (A. Garcia). (See id.) On August 11, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge ordered 

defendants to provide evidence that they had properly served these individuals with the notice. 

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 72 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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

(Doc. No. 68.) Defendants responded on August 16, 2016 with evidence that A. Garcia had been 

served on May 7, 2016, but reported that service was not effected on either C. Grenot or D. 

Rodriguez. (Doc. No. 69.) On August 17, 2016, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending the matter be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1). (Doc. No. 

70.)

Rule 25(a)(1) provides for the dismissal of an action if a motion for substitution is not 

made within ninety days after service of a statement noting plaintiff’s death. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

25(a)(1). Two things are required for the running of the ninety-day period to commence: a party 

must 1) formally suggest the death of the party on the record, and 2) serve the suggestion of death 

on the other parties and nonparty successors or representatives. Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 

233 (9th Cir. 1994). A party may be served with the suggestion of death by service on his or her 

attorney as provided for in Rule 5, while non-party successors or representatives of the deceased 

party must be served the suggestion of death in the manner provided for in Rule 4 for the service 

of a summons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3); Barlow, 39 F.3d at 232–34. 

Rule 4 states a summons may be served either by “following state law for serving a 

summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court 

is located or where service is made,” or by doing any of the following: (1) “delivering a copy of 

the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally”; (2) “leaving a copy of each at the 

individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who 

resides there”; or (3) “delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law 

to receive service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). In California, service of a summons may be 

effected by personal delivery, California Civil Procedure Code § 415.10, by leaving a copy of the 

summons at an office or residence with an appropriate person and thereafter mailing another copy 

to the same individual at the same address, § 415.20, by mail, § 415.30, or by publication, 

§ 415.50. Additionally, failing these methods, a court in California may order a summons be 

served “in a manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be 

served.” Cal. Civ. P. Code § 413.30.

/////

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 72 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Here, defendants filed a formal notice of plaintiff’s death with the court on May 4, 2016. 

(Doc. No. 66.) Defendants have produced evidence that plaintiff’s daughter, Amelia Garcia, was 

served by personal delivery on May 7, 2016. (Doc. No. 69.) However, the evidence defendants 

supplied to the court establishes that while personal delivery of the notice was attempted by 

defendants on plaintiff’s wife, Caroline Grenot, and plaintiff’s brother, David Rodriguez, neither 

were located at their respective addresses, and therefore, neither was served with notice. (Doc. 

No. 69.) Moreover, the documents submitted by defendants do not indicate any other attempts 

were made to serve either Ms. Grenot or Mr. Rodriguez, both of whom defendants represent to be

non-party successors or representatives, by means other than personal delivery. The court views 

this evidence as being contrary to defendants’ representations that a copy of the notice was being 

served on all three of these individuals. (See Doc. No. 66.)

The court previously ordered defendants to supplement their notice with evidence of 

proper service. (Doc. No. 68.) Instead, defendants supplemented with evidence that they had 

served only one of the individuals indicated, along with evidence that they had, in fact, failed to 

serve the other individuals. (Doc. No. 69.) As such, defendants have failed to comply with this 

court’s prior order or with Rule 25(a)(3) in a manner that would allow the ninety-day period in 

which plaintiff’s successors may seek substitution to start running. See Barlow, 39 F.3d at 233. 

If defendants are unable to effect personal service, despite repeated attempts, they may 

complete service via alternate means, as identified above. If none of the means of completing 

service specifically listed can be completed by defendants here, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure incorporate a California statute which allows for the court to order service in any 

manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the person being served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(e); Cal. Civ. P. Code § 413.30. Defendants may seek leave from the court to effectuate service 

in such a manner if they show they are unable to complete service in one of the ways set forth in 

the appropriate rules and state statutes identified above. Here, it is clear Ms. Grenot is actually 

aware of this lawsuit because she submitted a notice of death to the court and inquired about the 

continuation of the litigation following her husband’s death. (Doc. No. 67.) Given that 

defendants’ notice of death would advise Ms. Grenot of the time period in which she may file a 

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 72 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

motion for substitution and she has indicated an interest in doing so, it is particularly important 

that service of the notice actually be effected, not merely attempted.

For the reasons set forth above, defendants are HEREBY ORDERED to supplement their 

previously filed notice with evidence of proper service upon both Caroline Grenot and David 

Rodriguez within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order. The court declines 

to adopt the findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed pursuant 

to Rule 25(A)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00231-DAD-GSA Document 72 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 4