Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02828/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02828-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

3:14-cv-2828-GPC-PCL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLEON NEAL JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. AJMEL SANGHA, M.D.; K. 

WYATT, RN; DR. IRENE PULIDO,

M.D.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-2828-GPC-PCL

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AGAINST DEFENDANT PULIDO

On March 8, 2017, this Court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal to make 

service on Defendant Pulido on behalf of Plaintiff Jones, an inmate under custody. Dkt. 

No. 48. It had been a year and a half since Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint 

and yet Defendant Pulido had never been served. Id. As such, the Court directed the 

Government attorney assigned to the case to contact the litigation coordinator at 

Centinela State Prison, where Jones was being held, to obtain an address for Pulido so 

that the U.S. Marshal could serve the summons and First Amended Complaint on her. Id. 

The Court further indicated in its order that if Pulido was not served within ninety days of 

Case 3:14-cv-02828-GPC-PCL Document 51 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:14-cv-2828-GPC-PCL

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

the order, it would dismiss the FAC against Pulido without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(m). Id.

On May 2, 2017, the summons as to Pulido was returned unexecuted. Dkt. No. 50. 

The return receipt filed by the U.S. Marshal indicates that an officer attempted service at 

the confidential address obtained by the U.S. Marshal, but that the resident of the home 

“stated that no one by the name of Pulido lives” at that address. Id. The 

U.S. Marshal, therefore, was unable to effect service on Pulido. Id.

Given that service has not been made upon Pulido and that ninety days have 

elapsed since the Court’s March 8, 2017 order, the Court hereby DISMISSES the First 

Amended Complaint against Defendant Pulido without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 12, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-02828-GPC-PCL Document 51 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2