Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Ray Chavez, a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel, brought a civil rights action in the Eastern District of California against Rob St. Andre and other defendants. On September 29, 2026, defendants filed a notice stating that Chavez died on April 23, 2026. They reported that they had been unable to locate any probate matter for his estate, that they believed his son was the likely successor in interest, and that defense counsel would personally serve the notice on the son and file proof of service.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) allows the court to order substitution of a proper party if a party dies and the claim is not extinguished. If no motion for substitution is made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. The magistrate judge observed that California law, which federal courts apply to decide whether a section 1983 claim survives, generally does not extinguish a cause of action on a person's death, citing California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.20(a) and Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (1978). The order does not describe the underlying claims or their merits.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson issued a procedural order, not a ruling on the merits and not a dismissal. Relying on Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994), the court explained that Rule 25 requires two steps to start the 90-day period. A party must formally suggest the death on the record, and the suggesting party must serve nonparty successors or representatives in the manner Rule 4 provides for serving a summons. Under Barlow, the court said, defendants have some obligation to identify the plaintiff's representative or successor and to serve the notice of death on that person. It therefore directed defendants to provide a formal notice of death and serve it.
The order has three parts. Within 21 days, defendants must file a formal notice of the plaintiff's death. Within 30 days, they must either serve that notice on the plaintiff's personal representative or successor in interest, or notify the court that the representative or successor could not be located and explain the steps taken to find that person. The action is stayed for 120 days so defendants can comply and the representative or successor has an opportunity to file a motion for substitution. The court cited, with a 'see' signal, a District of Arizona decision that dismissed an action without prejudice when a successor could not be found. This order itself does not dismiss anything or decide what follows if no successor is located.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a procedural directive and a temporary stay. It does not dismiss the case, decide any claim, or enter judgment.
- Under Barlow, the 90-day substitution period depends on both a formal suggestion of death on the record and service on the nonparty successor or representative using Rule 4 methods, and defendants have some obligation to identify that person.
- Defendants must file the formal notice within 21 days and, within 30 days, either serve it or report to the court on their unsuccessful search for a successor.
- Under the California survival rule applied to section 1983 claims, a cause of action generally continues after a person's death, so the claim is not presumed extinguished.
- The 120-day stay gives a successor or representative time to move for substitution. Whether anyone does, and what happens if no one does, remains open.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a district court may handle the death of a self-represented former prisoner when no estate proceeding can be found. Rather than let the Rule 25 clock run or dismiss the case, it requires defendants to make the formal filing and to search for and serve a successor, consistent with Barlow's requirement of proper service on nonparties.
It is a short order by a magistrate judge and carries no precedential weight. Its value is as an illustration of the Rule 25 sequence in the Ninth Circuit. Still undecided are whether a successor will be found, whether a substitution motion will be filed, and whether the action will ultimately be dismissed under Rule 25(a). Nothing in the order addresses the merits of the plaintiff's claims.