Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shabazz v. Hartley

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 20, 2018

AMIR SHABAZZ, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES D. HARTLEY, et al ., Defendants.

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT BRAZELTON SHOULD NOT BE DIMISSED 21 DAY DEADLINE

         Amir Shabazz ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that various prison authorities violated the Eighth Amendment by transferring him to a prison that suffered from a Valley Fever epidemic and that he has contracted Valley Fever as a result.

         On March 7, 2017, the Court entered an Order finding service of process appropriate for defendants Paul D. Brazelton, Susan L. Hubbard, Deborah Hysen, Felix Igbinosa, J. Clark Kelso, Tonya Rothchilds, Dwight Winslow, and James A. Yates. (ECF No. 31.)

         As to Defendant Brazelton, the Court received notice that service was returned unexecuted on June 30, 2017. (ECF No. 38.) The notice indicated that defendant Brazelton was the former Warden at Pleasant Valley State Prison at the time of civil violation before passing away on November 11, 2016.[1] (Id. at 1.)

         Plaintiff has taken no action in connection with this notification concerning defendant Brazelton.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides:

(m) Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) provides a procedure for substitution of parties upon death:

         (a) Death.

(1) Substitution if the Claim Is Not Extinguished. If 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.
(2) Continuation Among the Remaining Parties. After a party's death, if the right sought to be enforced survives only to or against the remaining parties, the action does not abate, but proceeds in favor of or against the remaining parties. The death should be noted on the record.
(3) Service. A motion to substitute, together with a notice of hearing, must be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and on nonparties as provided in Rule 4. A statement noting death must be served in the same manner. Service may be made in any judicial district.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) applies to public officers sued in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.