DOYLE et al v. FALMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 42

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SUBSTITUTE granting 35 Motion to Substitute Party and denying 36 Motion to Substitute Party. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (CLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MARION DOYLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
FALMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants .

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 2:14-cv-000259-JDL
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SUBSTITUTE

This pro se action was originally brought by plaintiffs Michael Doyle and
Marion Doyle. See ECF No. 1. At a hearing on January 21, 2015, Michael Doyle
suggested Marion Doyle’s death on the record. See ECF No. 31. On February 4, I
issued an order dismissing plaintiff Michael Doyle’s complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief could be granted. ECF No. 33. I noted in that order that I would
decline to act on the defendants’ motion to dismiss as it related to Marion Doyle,
because a substitution for Marion as a party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 25 had not yet occurred. Id. at 1 n.1. On March 4, defendants filed a
motion to substitute Michael Doyle, in his capacity as the personal representative of
the Estate of Marion Doyle, for Marion. ECF No. 35 at 2. I grant defendants’ motion.
Defendants have further requested that Michael Doyle be compelled to obtain
counsel. Id. I decline to do so. However, I note that because a layperson may not
appear on behalf of an estate, see State v. Simanonok, 539 A.2d 211, 212 (Me. 1988),
Michael Doyle, in his capacity as the personal representative of the Estate of Marion

Doyle, must obtain counsel if he wishes to appear in this matter in his capacity as a
personal representative. If counsel for the Estate has not entered an appearance
within thirty (30) days of this order, I will issue an order to show cause why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Loc. R. 41.1(b).
Finally, Michael Doyle has also filed a motion to substitute himself for Marion
Doyle. ECF No. 36. It appears that Michael is seeking to substitute himself in his
personal capacity, and not in his capacity as the personal representative of Marion’s
Estate.

Id. at 1.

Because a cause of action only survives for the personal

representative of the deceased, see 18-A M.R.S.A. § 3-817(a), I deny Michael’s motion
to substitute himself in his individual capacity.
Accordingly, defendant’s motion to substitute (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED.
Michael Doyle’s motion to substitute (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 22, 2015

/s/ Jon D. Levy_____________
U.S. District Judge

2