Johnson v. Fritz et al

Filing 115

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. No motion for substitution has been filed bya successor or representative of Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss this action. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/12/2014. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 ANTHONY W. JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 J. WARRINGTON, 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 12-00722 EJD (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 17 18 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C § 1983, challenging the 19 conditions of his confinement at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). For the reasons 20 set forth below, this action is DISMISSED. 21 22 23 24 25 DISCUSSION On May 2, 2014, Defendants filed a “Statement of Death,” stating that Plaintiff died on or about February 24, 2014. (Docket No. 113.) In general, the law of the forum state determines whether a section 1983 action 26 survives or is extinguished upon the death of a party. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a); 27 Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 592–595 (1978). Under California law, 28 Plaintiff’s section 1983 damages claims survive his death. See Cal. Civ. Proc. § 377.20 1 (“Except as otherwise provided by statute, a cause of action for or against a person is 2 not lost by reason of the person's death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations 3 period.”); Cal. Civ. Proc. § 377.21 (“A pending action ... does not abate by the death of 4 a party if the cause of action survives.”); cf. In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human 5 Rights Litig., 25 F.3d 1467, 1476 (9th Cir.1994) (noting that Eighth Amendment claims 6 and 1983 actions survive the death of a party). A pending action asserting surviving 7 claims can be continued by the plaintiff’s personal representative or successor in 8 interest, as defined by the California Probate Code. See Cal. Civ. Proc. § 377.40 9 (“Subject to [the section of the Probate Code governing creditor claims,] a cause of action against a decedent that survives may be asserted against the decedent’s personal 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent’s successor in 12 interest.”); Smith v. Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411, 1416–1417 (9th Cir.1987) (applying 13 California survivorship law to hold that a section 1983 claim could be asserted by the 14 decedent's estate), overruled on other grounds by Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 15 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). When a party dies and the claim is not 16 extinguished, the court may order substitution of the deceased party with the proper 17 legal representative. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(a); Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 18 766 (9th Cir. 1996). 19 On May 7, 2014, Defendants served the “Statement of Death” in the manner 20 provided in Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4 for service of a summons, as required by Fed. R. Civ. 21 Proc. 25(a)(3) on the two known survivors of Plaintiff, (see Docket No. 114). Id.; see 22 also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(a)(3) (“A statement noting death must be served [on non- 23 parties as provided in Rule 4].”); Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). 24 Service on Ms. Tammye Burnham and Lorette Hornton complied with the requirements 25 set forth in Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25 and commenced the running of the 90 day period for 26 substitution motions set forth in Rule 25(a)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(a)(1); see also 27 Barlow, 39 F.3d at 233. 28 2 1 More than ninety days have passed since Ms. Burnham and Ms. Hornton were 2 personally served the Statement of Death. No motion for substitution has been filed by 3 a successor or representative of Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss this 4 action. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(a)(1) (“If the [substitution] motion is not made within 5 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the 6 decedent must be dismissed.”) (emphasis added). 7 For the reasons stated above, this action is DISMISSED in accordance with Fed. 8 R. Civ. Proc. 25. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions as moot and 9 close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 DATED: 8/12/2014 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.12\00722Johnson_dism.wpd 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY W. JOHNSON JR., Case Number: CV12-00722 EJD Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. J. WARRINGTON, Defendant. / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 8/12/2014 That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Anthony Wayne Johnson F-58411 High Desert State Prison P. O. Box 3030 Susanville, CA 96127 Dated: 8/12/2014 /s/ Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?