Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Chijioke Chukwuma Isamade, proceeding pro se while incarcerated, filed a civil rights complaint in the Eastern District of California in February 2022 against Parker-Wright and other defendants. In September 2025 the magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be granted to defendants. Those findings and recommendations were still pending before the assigned district judge when plaintiff died.
Defendants filed two suggestions of death on consecutive days, June 29 and June 30, 2026, each naming a different successor-in-interest. The magistrate judge promptly ordered defendants to confirm the correct successor and to say whether the first notice had been filed in error. Defendants were also directed either to file an amended certificate showing that service complied with California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30, or to re-serve the statement in a manner complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On July 7, 2026, defendants filed a notice of compliance confirming the correct successor-in-interest and attaching a signed acknowledgment of receipt consistent with section 415.30. By minute order dated August 6, 2026, the magistrate judge struck the first-filed suggestion of death. The order also advised that, because the identified successor had been properly served, the case would be dismissed if no motion to substitute was filed by October 2, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge applied Rule 25(a)(1), which provides that if a motion for substitution is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. The court treated the suggestion of death as properly served on the correct successor-in-interest, relying on the notice of compliance and the signed acknowledgment of receipt.
The findings state that the time period has expired and that no motion for substitution has been filed. On that basis the magistrate judge recommends that the action be dismissed. The document does not say whether the dismissal would be with or without prejudice. It also does not analyze the merits of the underlying claims or resolve the earlier summary judgment recommendation.
The findings are submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). Written objections, captioned as objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, are due within fourteen days after service. Any response is due fourteen days after the objections are served. Failure to object in time may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Until the district judge acts, this is a recommendation, not a dismissal order or a final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 25(a)(1) ties the 90-day substitution window to service of a statement noting the death, so the clock depends on how and on whom the suggestion of death is served, not only on when the party died.
- Here the court confirmed that the suggestion of death named the correct successor-in-interest and that service was documented by a signed acknowledgment of receipt under California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30 before it relied on the deadline.
- Conflicting suggestions of death can delay the process. The court required defendants to clarify which was correct and struck the first-filed notice before warning that dismissal would follow if no one moved to substitute.
- The magistrate judge only recommended dismissal. The district judge must still act, and any party may file objections within fourteen days after service.
- The September 2025 summary judgment recommendation is not resolved in this document, so its status remains for the district judge to address.
Why It Matters
This recommendation is unpublished and issued by a magistrate judge, so it carries no precedential weight. It is still a practical illustration of how a federal court handles the death of a pro se prisoner plaintiff whose case was close to decision on summary judgment. Defendants who want the Rule 25 clock to run must serve the suggestion of death on the proper successor in a way the court accepts. This court insisted on a clean record, including a corrected notice and proof of service, before it enforced the deadline.
Much remains open. The district judge may adopt, modify or reject the recommendation. The findings do not address whether dismissal would be with prejudice, whether a successor could seek relief from dismissal, or how the dismissal recommendation interacts with the pending summary judgment recommendation. Successors-in-interest and their counsel should treat the stated deadlines and the fourteen-day objection period as firm.