Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2022

Lees v. CDCR/SVSP-LVN Singsong

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:19-cv-01603
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Lees v. Singsong, Judge Gilliam ordered death-related filing and substitution steps before the case can continue against Singsong.

Who this affects

Alexander Lees, defendant Singsong’s estate or personal representative, Singsong’s successors or representatives, and the defendants ordered to file and serve the statement of death.

What happened

Lees v. Singsong concerns claims by Alexander Lees against Singsong, who was reported deceased. The court said Lees’s Eighth Amendment and due process claims were legally sufficient; punitive damages ended with Singsong’s death, but the other claims survived.

The court ordered the defendants to file and serve a formal statement of Singsong’s death on Lees and on Singsong’s successors or representatives. After service, Lees has 90 days to pursue a creditor claim in probate court and ask this court to substitute Singsong’s personal representative as the defendant.

Judge Gilliam ordered these steps rather than dismissing Singsong immediately. If Lees does not meet the stated requirements within 90 days after service, the court will dismiss Singsong from the action without further notice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lees v. CDCR/SVSP-LVN Singsong · No. 4:19-cv-01603
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Mar. 4, 2022

Background

Defendants filed under seal a report indicating that defendant Singsong had died. The operative complaint asserted legally sufficient Eighth Amendment and due process claims against Singsong. Lees sought declaratory relief, injunctions concerning disciplinary actions and alleged physical violence and threats, and compensatory and punitive damages.

Effect of Singsong’s Death

The court explained that California law governs whether a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 survives a defendant’s death. Under that law, a surviving claim may be asserted against the deceased person’s personal representative or, when authorized by statute, a successor in interest. The court stated that Lees’s punitive-damages claim was extinguished by Singsong’s death, while the remaining claims survived.

Required Filing and Service

The court ordered defendants to file a statement or suggestion of Singsong’s death in the record and serve it on Lees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(3). Defendants must also serve the statement on Singsong’s nonparty successors or representatives in the manner used to serve a summons. The statement must provide the names and contact information of those successors or representatives and identify the county where Singsong’s estate is being administered.

Service of the statement on Lees will begin a 90-day period for seeking substitution of a proper defendant. The court noted that Rule 25 requires a motion to substitute within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death.

Steps Required of Lees

Within 90 days after being served with the statement of death, Lees must comply with the California probate-code requirements for pursuing a creditor’s claim against Singsong’s personal representative in the appropriate probate court. The relevant probate provision requires a claim to be filed, rejected in whole or in part, and followed by an application to the court handling the lawsuit for an order substituting the personal representative, within the specified period after notice of rejection. Lees must also file a motion in this court to substitute Singsong’s personal representative.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered defendants to file and serve the statement of death and required Lees to complete the probate and substitution steps within 90 days after service. The court stated that if Lees fails to meet the deadlines, it will dismiss Singsong from the action without further notice. The order did not dismiss Singsong at the time it was issued.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.