Bratton v. Broomfield
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-03885
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bratton v. Broomfield, Judge Freeman dismissed claims against deceased Defendant A. Sandler because no timely substitution motion was filed.
Ronald W. Bratton’s claims against deceased Defendant A. Sandler were dismissed, and Sandler was removed from the action. The order did not address the claims against the other defendants.
What happened
In Bratton v. Broomfield, Ronald W. Bratton, a state inmate representing himself, sued personnel at San Quentin State Prison under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously found that his complaint stated legally recognizable claims and ordered service on the defendants.
Defendants formally notified the court and the parties that Defendant A. Sandler had died. The notice was served on Sandler’s representative and on Bratton on December 2, 2022. Under the rule governing substitution after a party’s death, Bratton had 90 days to ask that a proper party replace Sandler, but he did not file that motion by the March 2, 2023 deadline.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the claims against A. Sandler under Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered the clerk to remove Sandler from the case. This order did not address the claims against the other defendants.
The detailed version
- Bratton v. Broomfield · No. 5:20-cv-03885
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 11, 2023
Background
Ronald W. Bratton, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against personnel at San Quentin State Prison. The court previously determined that the complaint, read liberally, stated cognizable claims and ordered the matter served on the defendants. Appearing defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
The court had directed defense counsel to file a formal notice reporting Defendant A. Sandler’s death because an earlier notice from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was insufficient. The defendants filed a formal suggestion of death on December 2, 2022. The filing stated that Christine Mok, identified as Sandler’s wife and representative, had waived personal service and acknowledged service on December 1, 2022. The defendants served Bratton with the notice and related papers on December 2, 2022.
Rule 25(a) deadline
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) permits substitution of a proper party when a party dies and the claim is not extinguished by the death. A motion for substitution may be filed by a party or by the deceased person’s successor or representative. If no substitution motion is filed within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the deceased party must be dismissed.
The court explained that the 90-day period begins only when two requirements are met: the death is formally placed on the record, and the suggestion of death is properly served on the other parties and on the deceased party’s nonparty successors or representatives. The court found those requirements satisfied. It calculated that the period began on December 2, 2022, and expired on March 2, 2023. Bratton was served with the notice on December 2, 2022, but did not file a substitution motion within that period.
Disposition
The court dismissed the claims against deceased Defendant A. Sandler under Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It directed the clerk to terminate A. Sandler as a defendant in the action. The order did not rule on the claims against the other defendants or on the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.