IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

WYOMA IVY, as Mother and PLAINTIFF Administratrix of the Estate of Michael Steven Young, Jr., deceased

V. NO. 4:20-CV-173-DMB-JMV

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Wyoma Ivy, as mother and administratrix of the Estate of Michael Steven Young, Jr., commenced this action against the defendants on October 3, 2020, by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Doc. #1. With the Court’s leave,1 Ivy filed an amended complaint on April 12, 2021, alleging § 1983 claims based on various constitutional violations resulting in Young’s death while he was incarcerated in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and a separate personal injury claim alleging Young suffered from the conditions of his confinement. Doc. #32. On August 9, 2021, Ivy’s counsel notified the Court through a motion filing that Ivy passed away on August 1, 2021. See Doc. #51 at 1. Approximately three and a half months later, Centurion of Mississippi, LLC, filed a motion to dismiss Ivy’s claims. Doc. #54. Ivy’s counsel and Centurion each requested, respectively, an extension of time to respond to and reply in support of the motion to dismiss. Docs. #60, #62. On February 24, 2022, Alvita Barnes, a wrongful death beneficiary and administratrix of the Estate of Young, was substituted as plaintiff for the deceased Ivy. Doc. #70.

1 Doc. #31. Generally, where there is a pending dispositive motion related to a deceased party, the proper course is to deny the motion without prejudice to being renewed once a proper substitution occurs. See, e.g., Gruenberg v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, No. 06-397,

, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2008) (denying motion for summary judgment without prejudice “pending compliance with Rule 25(a)(1)”); Lungu v. New Island Hosp./St/ Joseph Hosp., No. 11-0755,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 4, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal “in the event a proper party is substituted”). In accordance with this practice, the pending motion to dismiss [54] and the related requests for extension [60]2[62] are DENIED without prejudice. Since Barnes was substituted as a proper party following Ivy’s death, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order, Centurion may file a renewed motion to dismiss to the extent the previously raised issues remain viable. SO ORDERED, this 25th day of March, 2022. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 The motion for extension filed on Ivy’s behalf was rendered void after her death. See Rowland v. GGNSC Ripley, LLC, No. 3:13-CV-11,

, at *3 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 4, 2015).