1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL EURELLE JACQUES, No. 2:23-cv-0079 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 D. TILLERY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. The U.S. Marshal notified the court that Tillery is deceased. Plaintiff was directed to file 19 a motion for substitution. Plaintiff subsequently requested the appointment of counsel to assist 20 plaintiff in filing probate forms and motion for substitution of a party. As discussed below, 21 because a motion for substitution of a party would be futile, plaintiff’s request for counsel is 22 denied, and plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint 24 In the January 13, 2023 complaint, plaintiff raises one retaliation claim against defendant 25 D. Tillery, Correctional Officer at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). Plaintiff transferred from 26 High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) to MCSP with ten boxes of plaintiff’s property. Upon arrival 27 at MCSP on July 20, 2021, HDSP staff identified to Tillery the contents of the boxes, including 28 that 6 out of the 10 boxes contained active legal property. Tillery then went to his computer and 1 subsequently informed plaintiff that Tillery knows who plaintiff is and that plaintiff sues CDCR 2 staff. Tillery then tossed plaintiff’s property back on the van, knowingly depriving plaintiff of the 3 legal materials needed for plaintiff’s upcoming deadlines. (ECF No. 1 at 11.) 4 Defendant Tillery’s Death 5 On February 28, 2023, the U.S. Marshal filed a notice of intent not to waive service on 6 Donny Tillery because Tillery is deceased. (ECF No. 10.) Public records on the CDCR website 7 confirm that on November 3, 2022, Donny Tillery retired as a correctional officer at MCSP and 8 died on November 20, 2022. https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/insidecdcr/2022/11/29/donny-tillery- 9 retired-officer-passes-away/ (accessed June 21, 2023).1 The November 20, 2022 death of Donald 10 “Donny” Tillery was also noted on the public website “legacy.com.” 11 https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/donald-tillery-obituary?id=38206285 (accessed June 12 21, 2023). 13 Rule 25 14 Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the substitution of parties. 15 If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be 16 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 17 noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. 18 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Such provision authorizes the substitution of a proper party when an 20 existing party dies after the suit is commenced. Id.; see also History and Application of Rule, 7C 21 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1951 (3d ed.) (“The rule presupposes that substitution is for someone 22 who was a party to a pending action.[] Substitution is not possible if one who was named as a 23 party in fact died before the commencement of the action.[]” (footnotes omitted)). 24 1 The court may take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute 25 because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), including undisputed information posted on 26 official websites. Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). See also In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F.Supp.3d 1016, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (court may 27 take judicial notice of information on “publicly accessible websites” not subject to reasonable dispute); Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1155 n.4 (C.D. 28 Cal. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state agency records). 1 In 2020, the Ninth Circuit held that a dead person may not sue, be sued, or be joined as a 2 party to a lawsuit. LN Mgmt., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 957 F.3d 943, 951 (9th Cir. 3 2020). The Ninth Circuit declined to decide whether Rule 25(a) permits the substitution of a 4 party “dead ab initio,” but did discuss cases from the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Circuits addressing 5 such issue in several contexts. LN Mgmt., LLC, 957 F.3d at 955-56. Of relevance here, the Fifth 6 Circuit held that because defendant Buras died after he had hit and killed the victim with his 7 truck, but before the relatives of the victim filed the lawsuit, Rule 25(a) was unavailable because 8 Buras “predeceased the filing of the action.” Mizukami v. Buras, 419 F.2d 1319, 1320 (5th Cir. 9 1969). Several district courts in California agree, holding “that Rule 25 substitutions are 10 unavailable when the defendant for whom substitution is sought was dead before the 11 commencement of the action, which was therefore a nullity.” LN Mgmt., LLC, 957 F.3d at 954 12 (collecting cases). 13 Discussion 14 The undersigned is persuaded that Rule 25 does not apply to this action, and that 15 plaintiff’s complaint against decedent Tillery is a nullity. Lacy v. Tyson, 2012 WL 4343837, *2 16 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2012), adopted, 2012 WL 5421230 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012). In Lacy, the 17 plaintiff was a pro se state prisoner raising a § 1983 complaint against correctional officers and 18 medical staff. The district court held that because decedent R. Reyna died before the lawsuit was 19 filed, the motion for substitution under Rule 25 was denied, and decedent Reyna was dismissed 20 with prejudice. Lacy, 2012 WL 4343837 at *2. “While the Ninth Circuit has not addressed this 21 issue, courts have held, as a rule, that the substitution of parties cannot be ordered in conformance 22 with Rule 25(a)(1) where the person for whom substitution is sought died prior to being named a 23 party.” Lacy, 2012 WL 4343837 at *2. 24 Here, Donald Tillery died before the instant action was filed. Thus, there is no procedure 25 in place for the court to substitute his presence in this action for that of a personal representative 26 of his estate. See Moul v. Pace, 261 F. Supp. 616, 617-18 (D. Md. 1966) (“no procedural 27 mechanism exists for the Court to substitute [decedent’s] presence in this case for that of a 28 personal representative of his estate.”); Chorney v. Callahan, 135 F.Supp. 35, 36 (D. Mass. 1955) 1 (where a suit is filed against an individual who died before the complaint was filed, “at that 2 point the purported action was a nullity, for a dead man obviously cannot be named party 3 defendant in an action.”) 4 Plaintiff Jacques cites prior case Jacques v. Fererkins, No. 2:21-cv-0141 KJM KJN P 5 (E.D. Cal.), where plaintiff was appointed counsel to assist in pursuing a motion to substitute the 6 deceased defendant’s parents as parties to the litigation. (ECF No. 12 at 2.) However, in 7 plaintiff’s prior case, the deceased defendant died during the pendency of the litigation, after 8 plaintiff filed the complaint.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL EURELLE JACQUES, No. 2:23-cv-0079 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 D. TILLERY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. The U.S. Marshal notified the court that Tillery is deceased. Plaintiff was directed to file 19 a motion for substitution. Plaintiff subsequently requested the appointment of counsel to assist 20 plaintiff in filing probate forms and motion for substitution of a party. As discussed below, 21 because a motion for substitution of a party would be futile, plaintiff’s request for counsel is 22 denied, and plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint 24 In the January 13, 2023 complaint, plaintiff raises one retaliation claim against defendant 25 D. Tillery, Correctional Officer at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). Plaintiff transferred from 26 High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) to MCSP with ten boxes of plaintiff’s property. Upon arrival 27 at MCSP on July 20, 2021, HDSP staff identified to Tillery the contents of the boxes, including 28 that 6 out of the 10 boxes contained active legal property. Tillery then went to his computer and 1 subsequently informed plaintiff that Tillery knows who plaintiff is and that plaintiff sues CDCR 2 staff. Tillery then tossed plaintiff’s property back on the van, knowingly depriving plaintiff of the 3 legal materials needed for plaintiff’s upcoming deadlines. (ECF No. 1 at 11.) 4 Defendant Tillery’s Death 5 On February 28, 2023, the U.S. Marshal filed a notice of intent not to waive service on 6 Donny Tillery because Tillery is deceased. (ECF No. 10.) Public records on the CDCR website 7 confirm that on November 3, 2022, Donny Tillery retired as a correctional officer at MCSP and 8 died on November 20, 2022. https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/insidecdcr/2022/11/29/donny-tillery- 9 retired-officer-passes-away/ (accessed June 21, 2023).1 The November 20, 2022 death of Donald 10 “Donny” Tillery was also noted on the public website “legacy.com.” 11 https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/donald-tillery-obituary?id=38206285 (accessed June 12 21, 2023). 13 Rule 25 14 Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the substitution of parties. 15 If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be 16 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 17 noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. 18 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Such provision authorizes the substitution of a proper party when an 20 existing party dies after the suit is commenced. Id.; see also History and Application of Rule, 7C 21 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1951 (3d ed.) (“The rule presupposes that substitution is for someone 22 who was a party to a pending action.[] Substitution is not possible if one who was named as a 23 party in fact died before the commencement of the action.[]” (footnotes omitted)). 24 1 The court may take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute 25 because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), including undisputed information posted on 26 official websites. Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). See also In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F.Supp.3d 1016, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (court may 27 take judicial notice of information on “publicly accessible websites” not subject to reasonable dispute); Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1155 n.4 (C.D. 28 Cal. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state agency records). 1 In 2020, the Ninth Circuit held that a dead person may not sue, be sued, or be joined as a 2 party to a lawsuit. LN Mgmt., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 957 F.3d 943, 951 (9th Cir. 3 2020). The Ninth Circuit declined to decide whether Rule 25(a) permits the substitution of a 4 party “dead ab initio,” but did discuss cases from the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Circuits addressing 5 such issue in several contexts. LN Mgmt., LLC, 957 F.3d at 955-56. Of relevance here, the Fifth 6 Circuit held that because defendant Buras died after he had hit and killed the victim with his 7 truck, but before the relatives of the victim filed the lawsuit, Rule 25(a) was unavailable because 8 Buras “predeceased the filing of the action.” Mizukami v. Buras, 419 F.2d 1319, 1320 (5th Cir. 9 1969). Several district courts in California agree, holding “that Rule 25 substitutions are 10 unavailable when the defendant for whom substitution is sought was dead before the 11 commencement of the action, which was therefore a nullity.” LN Mgmt., LLC, 957 F.3d at 954 12 (collecting cases). 13 Discussion 14 The undersigned is persuaded that Rule 25 does not apply to this action, and that 15 plaintiff’s complaint against decedent Tillery is a nullity. Lacy v. Tyson, 2012 WL 4343837, *2 16 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2012), adopted, 2012 WL 5421230 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012). In Lacy, the 17 plaintiff was a pro se state prisoner raising a § 1983 complaint against correctional officers and 18 medical staff. The district court held that because decedent R. Reyna died before the lawsuit was 19 filed, the motion for substitution under Rule 25 was denied, and decedent Reyna was dismissed 20 with prejudice. Lacy, 2012 WL 4343837 at *2. “While the Ninth Circuit has not addressed this 21 issue, courts have held, as a rule, that the substitution of parties cannot be ordered in conformance 22 with Rule 25(a)(1) where the person for whom substitution is sought died prior to being named a 23 party.” Lacy, 2012 WL 4343837 at *2. 24 Here, Donald Tillery died before the instant action was filed. Thus, there is no procedure 25 in place for the court to substitute his presence in this action for that of a personal representative 26 of his estate. See Moul v. Pace, 261 F. Supp. 616, 617-18 (D. Md. 1966) (“no procedural 27 mechanism exists for the Court to substitute [decedent’s] presence in this case for that of a 28 personal representative of his estate.”); Chorney v. Callahan, 135 F.Supp. 35, 36 (D. Mass. 1955) 1 (where a suit is filed against an individual who died before the complaint was filed, “at that 2 point the purported action was a nullity, for a dead man obviously cannot be named party 3 defendant in an action.”) 4 Plaintiff Jacques cites prior case Jacques v. Fererkins, No. 2:21-cv-0141 KJM KJN P 5 (E.D. Cal.), where plaintiff was appointed counsel to assist in pursuing a motion to substitute the 6 deceased defendant’s parents as parties to the litigation. (ECF No. 12 at 2.) However, in 7 plaintiff’s prior case, the deceased defendant died during the pendency of the litigation, after 8 plaintiff filed the complaint. “The purpose behind Rule 25(a) suggests that substitution remains 9 available after filing and prior to service.” Gilmore v. Lockard, 936 F.3d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 2019) 10 (emphasis added). Here, defendant Tillery died on November 20, 2022, before plaintiff filed the 11 instant lawsuit on January 13, 2023. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit later confirmed such distinction: 12 In overturning the denial of Gilmore’s motion to substitute the prison guard’s “successor or representative,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a), we noted 13 in passing that Mizukami was “inapposite since that suit was filed after the defendant’s death, and Rule 25(a) presupposes that the 14 deceased was already a party in the action prior to death.” 15 LN Mgmt., LLC, 957 F.3d at 951, quoting Gilmore, 936 F.3d at 864 n.4. Thus, the Ninth Circuit 16 concluded that a party cannot bring a federal lawsuit against a dead person. LN Mgmt., LLC, 957 17 F.3d at 955. 18 Following LN Mgmt., LLC, plaintiff is not allowed to name or join a dead person as a 19 defendant. This case is very similar to Lacy, and the undersigned is persuaded by, and adopts, its 20 reasoning. See also Cavanaugh v. County of San Diego, 2020 WL 8838234 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 21 2020) (“This Court is persuaded to follow the several federal courts which hold that a party 22 cannot maintain suit against a dead person, or in any other way make a dead person (in that 23 person’s own right, and not through a properly-represented estate or successor) a party to a 24 federal lawsuit.”) Because Donald Tillery died before this action was commenced, Rule 25(a) 25 does not apply, plaintiff’s claims against such defendant are a nullity, and defendant Donald 26 Tillery should be dismissed from this action with prejudice. In light of this finding, it would be 27 futile to appoint counsel to assist plaintiff in preparing a motion for substitution, and the motion 28 to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice. ] Finally, plaintiff named no other individual as a defendant in this action. Therefore, it 2 || appears the action should be dismissed. However, in an abundance of caution, plaintiff is ordered 3 || to show cause, if any plaintiff may have, why Tillery should not be dismissed with prejudice from 4 || this action, and why this action should not be dismissed. In the alternative, plaintiff may opt to 5 || voluntarily dismiss this action. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiffs motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied without 8 | prejudice; and 9 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, within thirty days, why Tillery should not be dismissed from 10 || this action with prejudice, and why this action should not be dismissed. 11 | Dated: June 29, 2023 Aectl Aharon 13 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 /jacq0079.0sc 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28