govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-2_25-cv-03581-2

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
----oo0oo---- 
CHRISTOPHER LEEPER, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al., 
Defendants. 
No. 2:25-cv-3581 WBS DMC 
 
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 
TO DISMISS 
 
----oo0oo---- 
Defendants City of Redding and Daniel Stewart filed 
this motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff, Christopher 
Leeper, is deceased and therefore lacks standing. (Docket No. 
18.) Defendants informed the court of a meeting with plaintiff’s 
counsel, who indicated an intent to file a second amended 
complaint, and that the meeting “suggested that the issues before 
the court” in the instant motion “might be resolved through 
another amended complaint.” (Docket No. 20.) Plaintiff has 
neither opposed the motion nor filed a second amended complaint. 
Having reviewed defendants’ motion, and the motion 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 2 
 
 
being unopposed, the court will grant the motion. The complaint 
admits that Leeper passed away as a result of his injuries. 
(First Amended Compl. ¶ 31.) It is “self-evident” that “a dead 
person, qua a dead person . . . cannot sue [or] be sued,” and 
thus that “a deceased plaintiff lacks Article III standing.” LN 
Mgmt., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 957 F.3d 943, 950-53 
(9th Cir. 2020). That being the case, Leeper’s “action may be 
commenced” by his “personal representative” or his “successor in 
interest.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 377.30; see also Tatum v. City 
& Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1093 n. 2 (9th Cir. 
2006) (“Where there is no personal representative for the estate, 
the decedent’s ‘successor in interest’ may prosecute the survival 
action if the person purporting to act as successor in interest 
satisfies the requirements of California law.”). 
This action was filed in Leeper’s name and no 
authorized representative is named or mentioned in the operative 
complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to 
dismiss (Docket No. 18) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. An 
amended complaint may be filed by an authorized representative of 
plaintiff within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, if they can 
do so consistent with this Order. 
Dated: June 3, 2026 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight