Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03516/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03516-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILES ORLONDO BONTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03516-HSG (PR) 

ORDER REGARDING UNSERVED 

DEFENDANTS; DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 32, 33

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison proceeding pro se, filed an amended 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison medical staff. On February 15, 2018, the Court 

found that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs as against 

Dr. K. Kumar, Dr. Lawrence Gamboa, Dr. Claudine Marie Lott, Dr. Joseph Chudy, Dr. Carl 

Bourne, Dr. Jennifer Villafuerte, Dr. Rachael Ross, Registered Nurse Morillo, and Dr. T. Nygen 

and issued an order of service. The Court noted that a tenth defendant, Edward Birdsong, DO, 

was deceased and directed plaintiff to provide the Court with location information for defendant 

Birdsong’s successor or representative such that the Marshal could effect service. On March 22, 

2018, the summons for defendant Dr. T. Nygen was returned unexecuted. The Court ordered 

plaintiff to either effect service on defendant Nygen or provide the Court with his current location 

such that the Marshal could effect service. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s response to the 

Court’s directions regarding defendants Birdsong and Nygen. Plaintiff has also filed a “motion for 

an appropriate medical examination and issuance of adequate pain medication relief.”

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 35 Filed 05/01/18 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

A. Unserved Defendants

Plaintiff requests a voluntary dismissal of deceased defendant Edward Birdsong. Plaintiff 

also indicates that defendant Nygen’s name was misspelled on the complaint and asks to correct 

the spelling of defendant’s name to Dr. Thao Nguyen and to direct to Marshal to reissue service. 

Plaintiff’s requests will be granted pursuant to the instructions below.

Plaintiff has also identified one of the Doe defendants in his complaint as “J. Louis, 

Deputy Director” and asks that the Court direct the Marshal to issue service on J. Louis. The 

request will be denied without prejudice. As stated in the Court’s February 15, 2018 order of 

service, if plaintiff succeeds in identifying any unknown defendants, he must, upon a proper 

showing, move to amend to add them to his complaint. Parties may not file piecemeal complaints 

or amendments that contain portions of claims and defendants.

B. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff’s “motion for an appropriate medical examination and issuance of adequate pain 

medication relief” is construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 65 sets forth the procedure for issuance of a preliminary injunction or temporary 

restraining order (“TRO”). “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one 

that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of 

persuasion.’” Lopez v. Brewer, et al., 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) 

(emphasis in original). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is 

likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 

public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof for 

the issuance of a preliminary injunction. It is too early in the litigation to determine whether 

plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks through his complaint and injunction. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 35 Filed 05/01/18 Page 2 of 5
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1. The Clerk shall re-issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, a copy of the first amended complaint in this matter (dkt. no. 20-1), all 

attachments thereto, a copy of the Court’s February 15, 2018 screening order (dkt. no. 25), and a 

copy of this order on defendant Dr. Thao Nguyen at Salinas Valley State Prison.

The Clerk is further directed to correct the spelling of defendant Nguyen’s name on the

court docket by substituting “Dr. Thao Nguyen” for “MD T. Nygen.” 

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, defendants must file 

and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the 

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, defendants must so inform the 

Court prior to the date the motion is due. A motion for summary judgment also must be 

accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely, and adequate notice of what 

is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 

2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be 

served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).1 

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 

must be filed with the Court and served upon defendants no later than 28 days from the date the 

motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment 

provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the 

opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 

hearing will be held on the motion. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must do in 

 

1

If defendants assert that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as 

required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendants must raise such argument in a motion for summary 

judgment, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014)

(en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that 

failure to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 

should be raised by a defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). 

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 35 Filed 05/01/18 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted 

when there is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact 

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a 

motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn 

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out 

specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, 

as provided in Rule 56(c), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and 

documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit 

your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. 

If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v. 

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A).

(The Rand notice above does not excuse defendants’ obligation to serve said notice again 

concurrently with a motion for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).

4. Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal of defendant Birdsong is GRANTED. 

Defendant Birdsong is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate Birdsong as a 

defendant on the docket in this action.

5. Plaintiff’s request for service on J. Louis is DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff 

filing a motion to for leave to amend to properly add J. Louis to the complaint. If plaintiff opts to 

file a motion for leave to amend, it must be submitted with a proposed second amended complaint

as required by Civil Local Rule 10-1. Plaintiff is cautioned that, because an amended complaint 

completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to 

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate 

material from the original complaint or first amended complaint by reference. If plaintiff decides 

to file a motion to amend with a proposed second amended complaint, he must do so within 28

days from the filing date of this order. Defendants shall file an opposition or statement of nonopposition within 28 days of the date the motion is filed. If plaintiff wishes to file a reply, he 

must do so within 14 days of the date the opposition is filed.

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 35 Filed 05/01/18 Page 4 of 5
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

6. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED without prejudice.

This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 32 and 33.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/1/2018

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 35 Filed 05/01/18 Page 5 of 5