Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03516/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03516-12/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.

K. KUMAR, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS 

CHUDY, NGUYEN, AND 

VILLAFUERTE; GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE 

SUR-REPLY

Re: Dkt. No. 95

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 15, 2018, the Court found that plaintiff stated a 

cognizable claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs as against nine defendants and issued 

an order of service. On June 21, 2018, the Court reviewed plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

and ordered service on an additional three defendants.

In an order filed June 27, 2018, the Court noted that defendants Joseph Chudy and Thao 

Nguyen had not been served with process or appeared in this action. In an order dated July 9, 

2018, the Court noted that defendant Jennifer Villafuerte had not been served with process or 

appeared in this action. The Court explained that the Marshal had been unable to locate these 

three defendants with the information provided by plaintiff, and service therefore had not occurred 

within the time limits set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Court ordered that, 

within ninety days, plaintiff had to effectuate service on these defendants or submit to the Court 

sufficient information to identify and locate these defendants so that the Marshal could effectuate

service. The Court also cautioned plaintiff that if he did not provide sufficient information to 

enable service of process, these defendants would be dismissed without prejudice. 

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 96 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 2
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

The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not provided any information to enable service

of process on defendants Chudy, Nguyen, or Villafuerte or shown cause for his failure to do so. 

Accordingly, defendants Chudy, Nguyen, and Villafuerte are DISMISSED from this action 

without prejudice because plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

The Clerk is directed to terminate Chudy, Nguyen, and Villafuerte as defendants on the docket in 

this action.

Defendants have filed a motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. 

Plaintiff has filed an opposition, defendants have filed a reply, and plaintiff has filed an 

unauthorized sur-reply. Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 95) to strike plaintiff’s unauthorized surreply (Dkt. No. 94) is GRANTED. Sur-replies are not part of usual motion practice, as indicated 

in Civil Local Rule 7-3; plaintiff did not ask for permission to file such a document, as required by 

Civil Local Rule 7-3(d); and plaintiff already had the opportunity, through his opposition, to raise 

any contentions related to defendants’ motion. 

Defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status is deemed submitted and ready for 

disposition. No further briefing on the motion will be allowed unless a party obtains prior 

permission from the Court and provides sufficient cause in any such request. The Court will rule 

on the motion by separate order.

This order terminates Dkt. No. 95.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/10/2018

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 96 Filed 12/10/18 Page 2 of 2