(PC) Nguyen v. Suprovici

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUC VAN NGUYEN, No. 2:24-cv-1774-DJC-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. SUPROVICI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff proceeds without counsel in this civil rights action seeking relief under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 17, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 22 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. 24 On July 24, 2025, the findings and recommendations were returned to the 25 court as “undeliverable; inmate deceased.” Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 25 permits a decedent’s successor or representative to file a motion for substitution— 27 which must be filed within ninety days of service of a statement noting the death— 28 adherence to Rule 25’s procedure is not feasible in this case. To trigger the ninety-day 1 | period for filing a motion for substitution, the suggestion of death must be served 2 || upon a non-party successor or representative of the deceased party in accordance 3 | with Rule 4. Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). The burden of 4 | serving successors or representatives is placed on the “suggesting party.” Id. at 233. 5 || Although the Solano County Sheriff's Office—the entity that provided notice of 6 | plaintiff's death—is named as a defendant in this case, it has not been served or 7 | formally appeared in this action. There are also no other parties who could effectuate 8 | service of a statement noting death. Consequently, dismissal without prejudice for the 9 || reasons stated in the court's screening order is appropriate. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 11 | 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully 12 | reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 13 | supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 17, 2025 (ECF No. 10) are 16 adopted in full; 17 2. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice as frivolous; and 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 19 50 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | Dated: _September 2, 2025 “Daal A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28