(PC) Chapdelaine v. Institutional Sergeant of R&R ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SEAN CHAPDELAINE, No. 1:23-cv-01396 GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 14 INSTITUTIONAL SERGEANT OF R&R, TO: et al., 15 (1) RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE Defendants. TO THIS MATTER, AND 16 (2) MAIL AND SERVE COPY OF THIS 17 ORDER 18 ORDER RECOMMENDING THAT THIS MATTER BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED 19 20 Plaintiff, formerly a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action 21 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 22 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The record indicates that after 23 this action was brought, but before: 1) an application to proceed in forma pauperis status was 24 filed, or the filing fee being paid, and; 2) before the matter was screened, Plaintiff passed away. 25 See ECF No. 5 (order to show cause regarding failure to pay filing fee or file in forma pauperis 26 application); ECF No. 8 at 4 (coroner’s report). 27 For the reasons stated below the undersigned will recommend that this matter be 28 1 summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In addition, the Clerk of Court will be directed to 2 mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff’s possible successor-in-interest and/or representative as 3 identified herein, and to also serve a copy of this order on the appropriate individual at the Office 4 of the Attorney General in Sacramento, California. 5 I. RELEVANT FACTS 6 In a December 28, 2023 filing, and in compliance with the Court’s order, the California 7 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation confirmed that Plaintiff has passed away. See ECF 8 Nos. 7, 8 (court order and response to same, respectively). Attached to the filing was a coroner’s 9 report from the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office which verified that Plaintiff is deceased. ECF 10 No. 8 at 4. 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 Normally, when a party to a case dies during an action, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 25(a) governs the substitution of parties. It states in relevant part: 14 (1) Substitution if the Claim Is Not Extinguished. If a party dies and the claim is 15 not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion 16 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 17 noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. 18 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). However, in this case and prior to Plaintiff’s death, Plaintiff had neither 20 paid the filing fee in full nor filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, as is statutorily 21 required, and thus this case was not formally filed (as opposed to simply being brought, see 22 below). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915 (filing fee requirements). In addition, because this matter 23 had not yet been screened by the Court, there had been no determination made at the time of 24 Plaintiff’s death whether any viable claims were properly raised against Defendant Warden 25 McVay, and/or against any of the three yet-to-be identified Doe Defendants. See generally ECF 26 No. 1 at 1-3 (complaint naming four Defendants); see also O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1151 27 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating complaint filed only after court identifies cognizable claims); Ford v. 28 Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir. 2004) (stating matter not filed until fee paid or in forma 1 pauperis status granted and matter passes statutory screening). In sum, because of the above 2 status of this case at the time of Plaintiff’s death, there was no statutorily recognized filed 3 complaint, and as such the court herein lacks jurisdiction to proceed further with the case--and 4 which also results in Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 being inapplicable. 5 “A court must have the power to decide the claim before it (subject matter jurisdiction) 6 and power over the parties before it (personal jurisdiction) before it can resolve a case.” 7 Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., 580 U.S. 82, 95 (2017) (citation omitted); Becker v. Ute 8 Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, 868 F.3d 1199, 1207 (10th Cir. 2017) (Hartz, 9 J. concurring) (quoting Lightfoot); Greenfiled MHP Associates, L.P. v. Ametek, Inc., No. 3:15- 10 cv-01525 GPC AGS, 2018 WL 538961, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2018) (citing Lightfoot). “[O]ne 11 becomes a party officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of a 12 summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must 13 appear and defend.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 14 (1999) (brackets added); see also Life Technologies Corp. v. Govindaraj, 931 F.3d 259, 264 (4th 15 Cir. 2019) (citing Murphy Bros., Inc.); Beckett v. Scalia, No. 1:20-cv-01468 CDB (PC), 2023 16 WL 6393083, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2023) (citing same); Doe v. Mast, No. 3:22-cv-00049, 2023 17 WL 4492466, at *3 (W.D. Va. July 12, 2023) (citing same). 18 Again, given these facts and the applicable law, when considering the possible 19 substitution of parties under Rule 25(a), because the instant complaint had yet to be screened 20 there are no existing claims, nor are there any defendant parties upon whom a motion for 21 substitution could be served. Thus, besides finding Rule 25 to be inapplicable the Court will 22 recommend that this matter be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In addition, the 23 Clerk of Court will be directed to: (1) send a copy of this order to Plaintiff’s possible successor- 24 in-interest and/or representative who is identified in ECF No. 6 (SEALED EVENT) at the address 25 provided at ECF No. 6 at 2, and (2) serve a copy of this order on the Office of the Attorney 26 General in Sacramento, California. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall: 28 1. Randomly assign a District Judge to this action; 1 2. Mail a copy of the order to Plaintiff possible successor-in-interest and/or 2 representative identified in ECF No. 6 at 2 (SEALED EVENT), and 3 3. Serve a copy of this order on R. Lawrence Bragg, Supervising Deputy Attorney 4 General at the Office of the Attorney General in Sacramento, California. 5 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be SUMMARILY DISMISSED for 6 lack of jurisdiction.1 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: March 6, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Because there are no parties who are able to lawfully object to this order, no period to do so is 28 allotted.