(PC) Green v. Mohyuddin

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01066
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK GREEN, No. 2:23-cv-01066-DJC-CSK-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DR. MOHYUDDIN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, now deceased, was a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302. 21 On July 31, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations 22 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 23 any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 24 days. (F. & R. (ECF No. 36).) In the Findings and Recommendations, the Magistrate 25 Judge recommended that the motion for substitution be denied for being untimely 26 and for not being compliant with requirements in California Civil Procedure Code 27 Section 377.32(c). (See F.& R. at 6–8.) It was also recommended that the action be 28 dismissed. (See id. at 8.) Plaintiff’s son, Jonathan Green, filed timely objections to the 1 Findings and Recommendations. (Obj. (ECF No. 37).) 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 3 | 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. See United States v. 4 | Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003). Having carefully reviewed the 5 | entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the 6 || record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 7 While the Court is sympathetic to the difficulty pro se parties face in litigating 8 | their cases, the Magistrate Judge in this case set out the requirements for a 9 | substitution that complied with state law, and provided additional time for the parties 10 | to file the appropriate substitution. (ECF No. 25.) The parties requesting substitution 11 | did not timely comply with that Order or request additional time to do so. While the 12 | Court is cognizant that dismissal is not mandatory for failure to timely file a motion for 13 | substitution following the death of a party, Zanowick v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 850 14 | F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted), the parties requesting substitution 15 | have not shown good cause in this case, either in their second motion to substitute 16 | filed four months after the extended deadline set by the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 17 | 33) or in the objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 37). 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 36) are adopted in full; 20 2. The motion for substitution (ECF No. 33) is denied; 21 3. This action is dismissed; and 22 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 | Dated: _February 20, 2025 Donel J bnetto Hon. Daniel alabretta 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28