Does Rule 5 service by mail to a deceased pro se party satisfy the due process requirement of notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the taking of his estate's property?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Dr. Laurence R. Dry, Jr., an attorney and physician, died two weeks after filing a lawsuit, pro se, against Respondents. Under Tennessee law, Respondents were required to personally serve the decedent’s , successors or representatives with a Suggestion of Death to allow timely substitution for Dr. Dry, the sole plaintiff in the action. Instead, Respondents mailed a Suggestion of Death to the former law office of the deceased Dr. Dry, and when he failed to file a motion to substitute someone for himself, the Tennessee courts dismissed his case, holding that service by mail, to ; the deceased Dr. Dry’s former office, was sufficient to satisfy due process. Even though that judgment is void as to the administrator ad litem, who has never been a party in the case and who has never received proper notice of the suggestion of death, the Tennessee courts, relying on dicta, used the void judgment as the basis for preventing the administrator ad litem from being ; heard on her motion to be substituted for Dr. Dry, thus violating her due process rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Petitioner Wanda Dry, in her capacity as administrator ad litem for the estate of Dr. Dry, poses the following questions: . 1. Does Rule 5 service by mail to a deceased pro se party satisfy the due process requirement of notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the taking of his estate’s property? ; 2. Does Rule 5 service by mail to a deceased pro se party satisfy Rule 4’s personal service requirement . i and Rule 25’s right of notice and opportunity to be ; heard prior to the taking of the estate’s property? _ ili ,