Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02828/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02828-4/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 DIRECTING SERVICE

On March 23, 2015, the Court directed the U.S. Marshal to effect service of the 

First Amended Complaint on Irene Pulido and Ajmel Sangha. Dkt. No. 7. The summons 

as to Defendant Sangha was returned executed on June 17, 2015. Dkt. No. 14. The 

summons as to Irene Pulido, however, was returned unexecuted. Dkt. No. 15. It appears,

from the U.S. Marshal’s records, that Pulido could not be served because she did not live 

at the disclosed address and because she had moved to an unknown location. Id. 

Almost a year later, the U.S. Marshal made yet another attempt to serve Pulido.1 

See Dkt. No. 42. Again, the summons was returned unexecuted. Id. It appears from the 

 

1

It is unclear from the docket what prompted this second attempt. 

Case 3:14-cv-02828-GPC-PCL Document 48 Filed 03/08/17 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

U.S. Marshal’s records that the officials were yet again unable to locate Pulido, although 

they were able to make contact with an unknown individual who informed them that 

Pulido “was on maternity leave with no return date given.” Id. 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the 

complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must

dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order service be made 

within a specified time.” Here, over a year and a half have elapsed since Plaintiff filed 

his FAC and yet Pulido has never been served. Accordingly, the Court directs the 

Government Attorney assigned to this case to contact the litigation coordinator at

Centinela State Prison in order to obtain a current address for Pulido. In the event that 

the litigation coordinator has relevant information on Pulido’s whereabouts, the Court 

directs the Government Attorney to provide any such information to the U.S. Marshal in 

a confidential memorandum. The U.S. Marshal should then use that information to serve 

the summons and First Amended Complaint on Pulido. 

If, however, Pulido is not served within ninety (90) days of this order, the Court 

will dismiss the FAC against her without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 8, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-02828-GPC-PCL Document 48 Filed 03/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2