(PC) Gilmore v. Augustus

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 17, 2020
• Docket: 1:12-cv-00925
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 C. DWAYNE GILMORE, ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-00925-NONE-SAB (PC) ) 9 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT 10 v. ) PROOF OF SERVICE OF MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE OR PROPERLY SERVE THE 11 C. LOCKARD, et al., ) MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE ) 12 Defendants. ) [ECF No. 275] ) 13 ) ) 14

15 Plaintiff C. Dwayne Gilmore is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 16 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for substitution of Defendant Johnny “JJ” Torres. 18 (ECF No. 275.) 19 In addition to the substantive requirements, a motion to substitute must be properly served 20 upon the substituted party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3). Rule 25(a)(3) specifically provides: “A motion to 21 substitute, together with a notice of hearing, must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and 22 on nonparties as provided in Rule 4.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(3). Here, irrespective of the substantive 23 requirements for substitution, Plaintiff has not shown that the motion was properly served on the 24 individual to be substituted in place of Defendant Johnny Torres, i.e. Elizabeth Torres. Id. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within ten (10) days from the date of service of 2 || this order, Plaintiff shall submit proof that the motion to substitute was properly served or properly 3 || serve the motion in compliance with Rule 25(a)(3). Failure to comply with this order will result in th 4 || motion being DENIED. See Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 234-35 (9th Cir. 1994) (denying motiot 5 || to substitute because the service requirements of Rule 25(a)(3) were not satisfied). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (Fe _ 8 || Dated: _ March 16, 2020 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28