Samuel Russ Oxley v. Madrigal, et al.

N.D. California

Samuel Russ Oxley v. Madrigal, et al.

DecidedJanuary 6, 2026

Docket5:23-cv-02371

StatusUnknown

This text of Samuel Russ Oxley v. Madrigal, et al. (Samuel Russ Oxley v. Madrigal, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Samuel Russ Oxley v. Madrigal, et al., (N.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAMUEL RUSS OXLEY, 11 Case No. 23-cv-02371 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

13 v.

14 MADRIGAL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 against officers and the medical staff at the West County Detention Facility in Contra 20 Costa County, where he was previously confined. Dkt. No. 1. On September 3, 2025, 21 counsel for Defendants filed a notice of Plaintiff’s death on June 20, 2025, Dkt. No. 39, 22 which the Court construed as a notice of suggestion of death which implicated Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)’s process for substitution parties due to death. Dkt. No. 40. 24 Defendants’ counsel was directed to locate and serve the suggestion of death on nonparty 25 successors or representatives of Plaintiff under Rule 4 within twenty-eight days of the 26 order. Id. at 2. Pursuant to further court order, Defendants filed notice of service on 27 Marva L. Oxley, Plaintiff’s closest surviving relative, on September 26, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 1 || substitute in as plaintiff and that she had ninety days to do so; a copy of the last court order 2 || and the statement of Plaintiff's death was included with the notice. Dkt. No. 44 at 4-5, Ex. 3 A. 4 The time for Ms. Oxley to move for substitution has passed with no response. 5 || Accordingly, this action must be dismissed under Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 6 || Civil Procedure. At the court’s discretion, the dismissal shall be without prejudice. See 7 || Zanowick v. Baxter Healthcare, 850 F.3d 1090, 1094, 1096 (9th Cir. 2017). 8 The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: January 6, 2026 wach □□ | ETH LABSON FREEMAN i United States District Judge 12 13 14

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAMUEL RUSS OXLEY, 11 Case No. 23-cv-02371 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

13 v.

14 MADRIGAL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 against officers and the medical staff at the West County Detention Facility in Contra 20 Costa County, where he was previously confined. Dkt. No. 1. On September 3, 2025, 21 counsel for Defendants filed a notice of Plaintiff’s death on June 20, 2025, Dkt. No. 39, 22 which the Court construed as a notice of suggestion of death which implicated Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)’s process for substitution parties due to death. Dkt. No. 40. 24 Defendants’ counsel was directed to locate and serve the suggestion of death on nonparty 25 successors or representatives of Plaintiff under Rule 4 within twenty-eight days of the 26 order. Id. at 2. Pursuant to further court order, Defendants filed notice of service on 27 Marva L. Oxley, Plaintiff’s closest surviving relative, on September 26, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 1 || substitute in as plaintiff and that she had ninety days to do so; a copy of the last court order 2 || and the statement of Plaintiff's death was included with the notice. Dkt. No. 44 at 4-5, Ex. 3 A. 4 The time for Ms. Oxley to move for substitution has passed with no response. 5 || Accordingly, this action must be dismissed under Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 6 || Civil Procedure. At the court’s discretion, the dismissal shall be without prejudice. See 7 || Zanowick v. Baxter Healthcare, 850 F.3d 1090, 1094, 1096 (9th Cir. 2017). 8 The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: January 6, 2026 wach □□ | ETH LABSON FREEMAN i United States District Judge 12 13 14

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Samuel Russ Oxley v. Madrigal, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-russ-oxley-v-madrigal-et-al-cand-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack