Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00620/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00620-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0620 TLN KJN PS

ORDER

On April 23, 2015, defendants filed and served a statement of death, indicating that 

plaintiff Frederick Marceles Cooley (hereafter “Decedent”) had died on April 22, 2015. (ECF 

No. 56.)1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 provides, in part, that:

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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Accordingly, on April 24, 2015, the court issued an order requiring 

plaintiff’s successor or representative to file a motion for substitution within ninety (90) days 

 

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:14-cv-00620-TLN-KJN Document 70 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 5
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

from the date of that order. (ECF No. 57.) The motion was required to “be supported by briefing 

and adequate supporting documentation permitting the court to ascertain and verify that the 

movant is the proper successor or representative under applicable probate or intestate succession 

law.” (Id.) The court’s April 24, 2015 order cautioned that “[f]ailure to file such a motion by the 

required deadline will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.” (Id.)

On May 28, 2015, Frederick Marc Cooley, the biological father of Decedent (hereafter 

“Mr. Cooley”) filed a motion to be substituted as the plaintiff in this action. (ECF No. 58.) 

Subsequently, on June 19, 2015, the court denied that motion without prejudice. (ECF No. 62.) 

In its June 19, 2015 order, the court noted that there was no dispute that Decedent had died, and 

also found that Decedent’s claims were not extinguished by his death. (Id.) Nevertheless, 

because Mr. Cooley had not demonstrated that he was Decedent’s successor in interest under 

applicable probate or intestate succession law, and thus the proper party for substitution, the court 

denied the motion. (Id.) However, the denial was without prejudice to the refiling of a properlysupported motion. (Id.) The court outlined the applicable law with respect to successors in 

interest, and directed that any renewed motion for substitution be supported by an adequate 

factual showing concerning Mr. Cooley’s claimed status as successor in interest, as outlined in 

greater detail in the court’s June 19, 2015 order. (Id.)

Thereafter, on July 22, 2015, Mr. Cooley and Celestein Lavonda Tyson (Decedent’s 

biological mother, hereafter “Ms. Tyson”) filed an amended motion for substitution. (ECF No. 

63.) On July 28, 2015, the court denied that motion, reasoning that the evidence submitted along 

with the motion refuted the claim that Mr. Cooley and Ms. Tyson were Decedent’s proper 

successors in interest:

The declarations of Mr. Cooley and Ms. Tyson, as well as the report 

of an investigator that was retained by Mr. Cooley to investigate 

Decedent’s affairs, indicate that Decedent died without a will and 

was not married at the time of his death, but that Decedent is 

survived by one child, his three-year-old son, FMC Jr., who 

presently lives with his biological mother, Jenifer Johnson. (See

ECF No. 63, Exs. A-C.) As the court explained in its previous June 

19, 2015 order, under the California Probate Code, parents of a 

decedent who died intestate (without a will) inherit only if the 

decedent has no surviving spouse/domestic partner and no issue 

(children), in which case the parents take equally. (ECF No. 62 at 4 

Case 2:14-cv-00620-TLN-KJN Document 70 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 5
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

(citing Cal. Prob. Code § 6402(a)-(b)). Because Decedent here is 

survived by a child (FMC Jr.), Decedent’s parents inherit nothing. 

Instead, based on the record before the court, FMC Jr. is Decedent’s 

proper successor in interest. 

(ECF No. 65 at 2-3.) 

The court also addressed the possibility of FMC Jr. substituting in as the plaintiff in this 

action. (ECF No. 65 at 3.) The court noted that, because FMC Jr. is a minor, a guardian ad litem 

would have to be appointed for him, and the guardian ad litem would have to retain a licensed 

attorney to prosecute the surviving claims in federal court on behalf of FMC Jr., if FMC Jr. were 

to move to substitute. (Id.) See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(“[W]e hold that a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without 

retaining a lawyer.”); Estate of Laffoon v. Christianson, 2011 WL 1743645, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 

22, 2011) (“[A] non-attorney parent or guardian cannot bring a lawsuit in federal court on behalf 

of a minor or incompetent without retaining a lawyer. This is so because the minor’s right to 

trained legal assistance is greater than the parent’s right to appear pro se.”). 

The court further observed that the 90-day period to file a motion for substitution had 

already expired, subjecting Decedent’s claims to dismissal. (ECF No. 65 at 3.) Nevertheless, 

because attempts to substitute were made during the 90-day period and because related efforts 

had revealed Decedent’s proper successor in interest, the court exercised its discretion in the 

interest of fairness to grant a limited extension of time until September 3, 2015 to allow FMC Jr. 

to move for substitution. (Id.) However, the court emphasized that:

any such motion shall be accompanied by a motion to appoint an 

appropriate guardian ad litem for FMC Jr. in accordance with Local 

Rule 202, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, and other applicable 

law, and shall be filed by a licensed attorney who has been retained 

to prosecute the surviving claims and who files a notice of 

appearance as counsel in the action.

 

(Id.) (emphasis in original). The court cautioned that, absent a proper motion for substitution on 

file by September 3, 2015, findings and recommendations for dismissal would issue. (Id. at 4.)

Thereafter, on September 2, 2015, Mr. Cooley filed a motion for a 30-day extension of 

time to obtain counsel for FMC Jr. (ECF No. 66.) On September 4, 2015, the court granted that 

Case 2:14-cv-00620-TLN-KJN Document 70 Filed 10/29/15 Page 3 of 5
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, and extended the deadline to file a motion for substitution in accordance with the July 28, 

2015 order to October 5, 2015. (ECF No. 67.) However, the court expressly admonished that no 

further extensions would be granted. (Id.)

Finally, on October 8, 2015, after no motion for substitution by a licensed attorney was 

filed, the court issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). (ECF No. 68.) The court observed that it was 

sympathetic to the difficulties faced by Mr. Cooley in obtaining counsel for his grandson, but that 

the 90-day deadline set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) had already been extended by 

over 10 weeks, with no indication that the retention of counsel was imminent. Thus, the court 

concluded that dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) was required. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1) (“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.”).

On October 22, 2015, objections to the findings and recommendations were filed. (ECF 

No. 69.) The objections were apparently signed by Jenifer Johnson, the mother of FMC Jr., but 

were almost certainly prepared by Mr. Cooley, given the typical formatting and references to 

“Expressive Association” routinely used by Mr. Cooley in his filings. The objections contend 

that the 90-day period to file a motion for substitution under Rule 25(a)(1) was not triggered, 

because a statement of death was never served on FMC Jr. as the proper successor in interest. 

As an initial matter, the court again cautions Mr. Cooley that he cannot, as a non-attorney, 

represent other persons in federal court. The court also admonishes Ms. Johnson that she herself 

is ultimately responsible for the contents of her filings with the court, as well as their compliance 

with the court’s Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court’s orders. Failure 

to comply with such rules and orders may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

Moreover, the court has significant concerns that the objections ostensibly filed by Ms. 

Johnson essentially amount to gamesmanship and another attempt by Mr. Cooley to stall 

resolution of this action. Mr. Cooley has been assisting Decedent in this litigation behind the 

scenes since its inception, was well aware of Decedent’s death, sought to substitute himself as the 

plaintiff twice, and, after learning from the court’s July 28, 2015 order that FMC Jr. was 

Case 2:14-cv-00620-TLN-KJN Document 70 Filed 10/29/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Decedent’s proper successor in interest, has purportedly been seeking counsel to represent FMC 

Jr.’s interests for several months. Service of a statement of death on FMC Jr., a three-year old 

minor, would obviously be futile, and even if Ms. Johnson had been served with a statement of 

death on FMC Jr.’s behalf, it is unclear what she would have done differently from Mr. Cooley to 

obtain counsel for FMC Jr.

Nevertheless, out of abundance of caution, the court grants an additional 90 days for a 

licensed attorney to file a motion for substitution by FMC, Jr., accompanied by a motion to 

appoint a guardian ad litem. By the filing of her objections, as well as this order, Ms. Johnson, as 

FMC, Jr.’s mother, now unquestionably has notice of FMC, Jr.’s interest in this litigation and can 

join Mr. Cooley’s efforts to seek counsel to represent FMC, Jr. in the additional 90 days provided. 

However, Mr. Cooley and Ms. Johnson are encouraged to expeditiously pursue such efforts, 

because any further extension would be plainly contrary to the letter and spirit of Rule 25(a)(1), 

would essentially amount to an abuse of discretion, and thus will not be entertained.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The October 8, 2015 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 68) are VACATED.

2. Any motion for substitution by FMC, Jr., accompanied by a motion to appoint a 

guardian ad litem, shall be filed by a licensed attorney within 90 days of this order. 

No further extensions will be granted.

3. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on Jenifer Johnson at 29 Frey 

Place, Vallejo, CA 94590 (the address listed on the objections filed by Ms. Johnson). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 29, 2015

 

Case 2:14-cv-00620-TLN-KJN Document 70 Filed 10/29/15 Page 5 of 5