Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-05767/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-05767-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN FULTON, CASE NO. CV-F-97-5767 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT WILKINS 

vs.

E. MADRUGA,et.al.,

[Doc. 330]

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Allen Fulton (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment Excessive Force claim against defendants Madruga, Black and Espinosa and

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Wilkins. Plaintiff claims that on November 8,

1996 at Corcoran State Prison, defendants Madruga, Black, and Espinosa inflicted cruel and unusual

punishment on him by using excessive force. Plaintiff also claims that defendant Wilkins inflicted cruel

and unusual punishment on him by depriving him of his shoes and socks, and forcing him to walk

barefoot pushing a cart between buildings. This case is scheduled for jury trial on March 7, 2006 before

the Honorable District Judge Oliver W. Wanger. 

On July 18, 2005, defense counsel filed a suggestion of death on the record pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), stating the defendant Wilkins died on June 8, 2002. On August 1,

2005, plaintiff filed a “motion for court order substituting defendant Robert Thomas Wilkins

(deceased).” Neither defendant nor plaintiff served Mr. Wilkins’ representative or his estate and neither

party identified the proper party to be substituted. On August 1, 2005, the Court issued a Second

Case 1:97-cv-05767-OWW -DLB Document 335 Filed 02/10/06 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

Scheduling Order setting this matter for trial on March 7, 2005. There was a telephonic trial

confirmation hearing on January 27, 2006, during which the Court confirmed the March 7, 2006 trial

date. At the trial confirmation hearing, the Court advised the parties that both the suggestion of death

on the record by defense counsel and the motion to substitute by plaintiff were insufficient to meet the

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) because the proper parties had not been

identified orserved, namely, defendant Wilkins’ representatives. The Court granted the parties 10 days

in which to file proper motions concerning deceased defendant Wilkins. On January 31, 2006, the Court

issued a Pretrial Order confirming the March 7, 2006 trial date and advising the parties that any motions

relating to the dismissal and/or substitution of defendant Wilkins shall be filed on or before February

6, 2006. The Court also provided the parties instructions relating to Rule 25(a). On February 6, 2006,

defendants filed a motion to dismiss defendant Wilkins, arguing that defendant Wilkins should be

dismissed because plaintiff failed substitute the proper party within 90 days of the suggestion of death.

Defendants did not identify or serve the non-party successors or representatives of defendant Wilkins.

Plaintiff did not file a motion relating to defendant Wilkins.

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) provides:

If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order substitution

of the proper parties. The motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the

successors or representatives of the deceased party and, together with the notice of

hearing, shall be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and upon persons not parties

in the manner provided in Rule 4 for the service of a summons, and may be served in any

judicial district. Unless the motion for substitution is made not later than 90 days after

the death is suggested upon the record by service of statement of the fact of the death as

provided for herein for the service of the motion, the action shall be dismissed as to the

deceased party.

Two things are required of a party 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).

In order for the ninety-day period for substitution to be triggered, a party must formally suggest the death

of the party upon the record and 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

Case 1:97-cv-05767-OWW -DLB Document 335 Filed 02/10/06 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

substitute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(a)(1). Thus, a party may be served the suggestion of death by service on his

or her attorney, Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b), while non-party 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.

Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d at 232-234. Rule 25 requires dismissal absent a motion for substitution

within the ninety-day period only if the statement of death was properly served. Unicorn Tales, Inc., v.

Bannerjee, 138 F.3d 467, 469-471 (2d. Cir. 1998).

While defendants filed a suggestion of death on July 18, 2005, it was not served on the non-party

successors or representatives of defendant Wilkins and therefore the ninety-day period in which to file

a motion for substitution was never triggered. Defendants’ motion to dismiss defendant Wilkins based

on plaintiff’s failure to file a motion to substitute within 90 days, is therefore without merit and should

be denied. 

However, this case is proceeding to trial on March 7, 2006 and plaintiff has failed to file a proper

motion to substitute. A motion for substitution pursuant to Rule 25(a), like the suggestion of death, must

identify the decedent’s representative. Plaintiff was notified of the death of defendant Wilkins in July

2005. Despite this knowledge and despite this Court’s advisement, he has failed to identify defendant

Wilkins’ representative and move for substitution. Since a proper substitution has not been made, and

this case cannot proceed to trial against a deceased defendant, the Court recommends that defendant

Wilkins be dismissed from this action and the trial proceed against defendant Black, Espinosa and

Madruga only.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the

court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 9, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:97-cv-05767-OWW -DLB Document 335 Filed 02/10/06 Page 3 of 3