Gates v. Baker et al
ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice because no motion for substitution was made in accordance with the Court's January 13, 2021 order (ECF No. 27 ). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/26/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RICHARD R. GATES,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00309-MMD-WGC
R. BAKER, et. al.,
On June 6, 2019, Plaintiff Richard Gates, then an inmate in the custody of the
Nevada Department of Corrections, initiated this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1-1.) On January 12, 2021, Defendants filed a suggestion of
death on the record. (ECF No. 26.) On January 13, 2021, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), the Court directed any party or the decedent’s successor or
representative to file a motion for substitution within 90 days after service of a statement
noting death. (ECF No. 27.) That deadline has now expired, and no party has filed a
motion for substitution.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), “[i]f a party dies and the claim is
not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for
substitution may be 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 noting the death, the
action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).
It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice because no
motion for substitution was made in accordance with the Court’s January 13, 2021 order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
DATED THIS 26th Day of April 2021.
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?