Anderson v. Dzurenda

Opinion

1 2

5 * * * 6 JOSEPH M. ANDERSON, Case No. 3:18-cv-00426-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER 8 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Joseph M. Anderson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12 1983. (ECF No. 23.) Before the Court is Defendants’ notice identifying the party to be 13 substituted for decedent Richard Snyder (ECF No. 272), in compliance with the Court’s 14 March 24, 2022, order (ECF No. 267). For the reasons stated below, the Court will 15 substitute Deputy Director Brian Williams for Richard Snyder and allow Anderson’s First 16 Amendment Free Exercise and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 17 (“RLUIPA”) claims to proceed against Defendant Williams in his official capacity only. 18 To start, Defendants identified Deputy Director Brian Williams as the appropriate 19 substitute for Snyder in his official capacity. (ECF No. 272 at 1.) The Court grants this 20 substitution because Williams, who is a current member of the Religious Review Team 21 (“RRT”) at the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), is the proper successor in 22 office for Snyder, a former member of the RRT. (ECF Nos. 260 at 24, 272 at 1-2.) See 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) (providing that “[a]n action does not abate when a public officer who 24 is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the 25 action is pending. The officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party”). 26 Defendants have therefore satisfied their minimum obligations. See Gilmore v. Lockard, 27 936 F.3d 857, 867 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that in the context of inmate litigation, the state 28 attorney general must at the very least identify the decedent’s proper successor or 1 representative). 2 Next, as to Anderson’s claims against Snyder in his individual capacity, 3 Defendants have failed to identify a substitute. (ECF No. 272 at 2-3.) The law of the forum 4 state generally governs whether a section 1983 claim survives the death of a party. See 5 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a); Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 590-91 (1978). NRS § 6 41.100(1) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, no cause of action 7 is lost by reason of the death of any person, but may be maintained by or against the 8 person’s executor or administrator.” The Nevada Attorney General’s Office (“AG”) 9 conducted a thorough search and ascertained that no estate was established for Snyder. 10 (ECF No. 272 at 2-3.) In the notice, the AG outlined its good faith efforts to locate Snyder’s 11 estate, including a request to the First Judicial District Court, searches of multiple 12 databases, and contacting Snyder’s widow, who confirmed that there is no estate for her 13 late husband.1 (Id.) The AG also previously searched the records of Washoe and Clark 14 counties and Carson City, and was unable to locate an estate for Snyder. (ECF No. 261 15 at 4.) 16 The Court is therefore satisfied with Defendants’ efforts and finds that no further 17 action is necessary. See Allen v. Allenby, Case No. 1:15-cv-01609 DAD JDP (PC), 2020 18 WL 7319364, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020) (noting that “[a] motion to substitute under 19 Rule 25 may be denied if substitution, including identifying the appropriate representative, 20 would be unduly burdensome”) (citations omitted); Gruenberg v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s 21 Office, Case No. CV 06-0397-PHX-SMM (DKD), 2008 WL 2001253, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 22 8, 2008) (holding that after the defendants’ inquiries “failed to reveal any next-of-kin or an 23 executor of [the] [p]laintiff's estate,” they were not required to do more). Absent an 24 appropriate substitute, Anderson’s claims against Snyder in his individual capacity are 25 dismissed without prejudice. 26 It is therefore ordered that Deputy Director Brian Williams is substituted for 27 1The AG submitted an exhibit of its request to the First Judicial District Court 28 Clerk’s Office and a declaration from Douglas R. Rands outlining the efforts of the AG to 1 || decedent Richard Snyder in his official capacity. Snyder's First Amendment Free Exercise 2 || and RLUIPA claims may only proceed against Williams in his official capacity. 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket accordingly. 4 It is further ordered that the Attorney General’s Office will advise the Court within 5 || 10 days of the date of the entry of this order whether it will represent Defendant Brian 6 || Williams in this action. 7 It is further ordered that Anderson’s claims against Snyder in his individual capacity 8 || are dismissed without prejudice. 9 DATED THIS 27" Day of April 2022.

49 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28