Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00938/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00938-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Malakka
Defendant
Robert McKinney
Plaintiff
Singh
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT McKINNEY,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

SINGH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00938-AWI-GSA-PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT MOTION FOR 

SUBSTITUTION BE DENIED, AND THAT 

THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED

(Doc. 14.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

I. BACKGROUND

Robert McKinney (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the Complaint 

commencing this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 18, 2014. (Doc. 1.) 

This case now proceeds with the original Complaint, against defendants Dr. Singh and Dr. 

Malakka (“Defendants”), for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 

On March 2, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of suggestion of Plaintiff’s death, pursuant 

to Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 12.)

 

1 On November 18, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from this 

action for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.) Defendants Lieutenant D. Augustus, Sergeant J. S. Diaz, Licensed 

Vocational Nurse (LVN) A. Serna, LVN B. Ismat, LVN I. Bari, LVN J. Canada, LVN Z. Nartume, and John Doe

were dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state any claims against them upon which relief may 

be granted under §1983, and Plaintiff=s claims based on supervisory liability and claims for conspiracy and 

violation of due process were dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (Id.)

Case 1:14-cv-00938-AWI-GSA Document 23 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 4
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

On April 13, 2015, non-party Robin L. Chacon filed a motion for substitution pursuant 

to Rule 25(a). (Doc. 14.) On April 24, 2015, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. 

(Doc. 17.) On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 20.)

Robin L. Chacon’s motion for substitution is now before the court.

II. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION

Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f 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). The procedural 

requirements, determined by both the express language of the rule as well as case law, must be 

satisfied in order for a court to grant the motion for substitution. Survival actions are permitted 

under § 1983 if authorized by applicable state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 

1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 1998). California law provides that, “a cause of action for or against a 

person is not lost by reason of the person's death, but survives subject to the applicable 

limitations period.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.20(a); Chavez v. Carpenter, 91 Cal.App.4th

1433, 1443, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 534 (2001). 

In the Ninth Circuit, the only persons who may be substituted as parties under Rule 

25(a)(1) are legal representatives of the deceased. Mallonee v. Fahey, 200 F.2d 918, 919 (9th 

Cir. 1952.) California Probate Code § 58 defines a “personal representative” as an “executor, 

administrator, administrator with the will annexed, special administrator, successor personal 

representative, or a person who performs substantially the same function under the law of 

another jurisdiction governing the person's status.” Cal. Prob. Code § 58; Myers v. Philip 

Morris, Inc., 2003 WL 21756086 at *6 (E.D.Cal. 2003); Rose v. City of Los Angeles, 814 

F.Supp. 878, 881 (C.D.Cal. 1993); Coats v. K-Mart Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 961, 967, 264 

Cal.Rptr. 12 (1989). 

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00938-AWI-GSA Document 23 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Non-party Robin L. Chacon (“Ms. Chacon”), daughter of deceased Plaintiff Robert 

McKinney, requests her substitution as a party to this action in place of her father, pursuant to 

Rule 25(a). Her motion reads as follows, in its entirety:

I, Robin Chacon, is (sic) pleading to the court to allow a 

substitution of Parties after the death of my father, Robert 

McKinney, on January 17, 2015 for the above mentioned case. 

According to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure governs the substitution of parties after death, 

providing for substitution where the claim is not extinguished by 

the death of the party.

(Motion, Doc. 14 at 1.). 

Defendants oppose Ms. Chacon’s motion on the grounds that she has not complied with

California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32(c), which requires a successor in interest, who 

brings or continues the “survival” action because no estate personal representative has been 

appointed, to file a certified copy of Plaintiff’s death certificate together with an affidavit or 

declaration, stating specified information and signed under penalty of perjury. Defendants 

argue that until these defects are remedied, they have no choice but to oppose her motion. 

In her reply, Ms. Chacon provides a certified copy of Robert McKinney’s death 

certificate and a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, that she is “the decedent’s 

successor of the above mentioned plaintiff according to section 377.11 of the CCP and no 

proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate.” 

(Declaration of Robin Chacon, Doc. 20 at 1.)

III. DISCUSSION

Ms. Chacon alleges that she is the daughter and successor in interest2of decedent 

Robert McKinney, but she provides no evidence that she is the decedent’s legal representative. 

As discussed above, in this Circuit, the only parties who may be substituted under Rule 25(a) 

are legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, Ms. Chacon’s motion for substitution 

must be denied.

 

2 A “‘decedent's successor in interest’ means the beneficiary of the decedent's estate or other 

successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item of the property that is the subject of a 

cause of action.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.11; Lowrie, 118 Cal.App.4th at 228 n. 10, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 828.

Case 1:14-cv-00938-AWI-GSA Document 23 Filed 06/11/15 Page 3 of 4
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

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The court finds that non-party Robin L. Chacon has not provided evidence that she is 

Plaintiff’s legal representative under California law. Therefore, her motion for substitution 

should be denied. In addition, in light of the expiration of the ninety-day deadline under Rule 

25(a), this action should be dismissed in its entirety, due to Plaintiff’s death. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Non-party Robin L. Chacon’s motion for substitution, filed on March 20, 2015, 

be DENIED; and

2. This action be DISMISSED under Rule 25(a), due to Plaintiff Robert 

McKinney’s death.

These findings and recommendations are 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 thirty 

(30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 

written objections with the court. Such a 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 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 

(9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00938-AWI-GSA Document 23 Filed 06/11/15 Page 4 of 4