Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03516/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03516-6/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 GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, 

SECOND ORDER OF SERVICE, 

ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 39, 40, 41, 43, 44

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) 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 nine defendants and issued an order of service. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to add as defendants: J. Lewis and S. Gates at 

California Correctional Health Care Services as well as SVSP physician Darrin Bright. Plaintiff 

has submitted a proposed second amended complaint (“SAC”) with the motion. Defendants have 

not filed an opposition. Also before the Court are plaintiff’s: (1) motion for preliminary 

injunction, (2) motion for appointment of counsel, (3) motion to permit discovery and for 

scheduling conference, and (4) motion to modify defendants’ subpoena.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Leave to Amend

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 

pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it or, if the pleading is one to 

which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. 

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 53 Filed 06/21/18 Page 1 of 6
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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written 

consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be 

applied liberally in favor of amendments and, in general, leave shall be freely given when justice 

so requires. See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). There is no 

indication that plaintiff’s motion is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates 

undue delay. See id. Nor is there any suggestion that allowing plaintiff to file his proposed SAC 

would cause defendants any undue prejudice. See id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

amend is GRANTED. 

The Court has screened the SAC as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds that, liberally 

construed, it states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs as against the following defendants: 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, Dr. Thao Nguyen, J. Lewis, S. Gates, and Dr. Darrin Bright. 

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim (dkt. no. 43-1 at 19), is dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. The potential liability of defendants is under the Eighth Amendment, and 

is not under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. There is no constitutional right to 

a prison or jail administrative appeal or grievance system in California, and therefore no due 

process liability for failing to process or decide an inmate appeal properly. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 

334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Dismissal 

is without leave to amend as plaintiff has already amended twice, and it appears that further 

amendment would be futile. 

B. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff’s second “motion for a physical examination and issuance of adequate pain 

medication” (dkt. no. 41) 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) 

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 53 Filed 06/21/18 Page 2 of 6
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

(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. 

C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has requested that counsel be appointed to assist him in this action. Dkt. No. 40. 

A district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent 

an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits 

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together 

before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances 

requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. The request for appointment of counsel is 

therefore DENIED. The Court will consider appointment of counsel on its own motion, and seek 

volunteer counsel to agree to represent plaintiff pro bono, if it determines at a later time in the 

proceedings that appointment of counsel is warranted.

D. Motion for Discovery and Scheduling Conference

Plaintiff’s motion to permit discovery (dkt. no. 44) is GRANTED. His request for a 

scheduling conference (id.) is DENIED as unnecessary. As stated in the Court’s February 15, 

2018 order of service, discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 

16 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. The parties are free to confer on their 

own regarding a discovery plan. 

Plaintiff is advised that the court generally is not involved in the discovery process and 

only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. 

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 53 Filed 06/21/18 Page 3 of 6
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

Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy 

being sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1) (listing discovery requests and responses that 

“must not” be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders 

otherwise). 

E. Motion to Modify Defendants’ Subpoena

Plaintiff has filed a “motion to modify defendants’ subpoena requesting disclosure of 

privileged protective matter” (dkt. no. 39), in which he objects to the scope of a subpoena from 

defendants seeking plaintiff’s medical records. As stated above, the court is generally not 

involved in the discovery process. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific 

disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the 

parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a prisoner, the 

court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and defense counsel to 

meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the format of the meet-and-confer 

process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same: the parties must engage in a good 

faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court intervention in any discovery dispute.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED because there is no indication that plaintiff notified 

defendants of his objections or that the meet-and-confer process was accomplished before the 

motion was filed. The parties are reminded that they must put forth a good faith effort to resolve 

discovery disputes and shall be thorough and specific in their communications with each other.

F. Defendant Nurse Morillo

Service was ordered on the original nine defendants on February 15, 2018. On May 1, 

2018, the summons for defendant Nurse Morillo was returned unexecuted with the following 

remark by the United States Marshal: “unable to locate/ident employee.” Dkt. No. 34. 

Accordingly, defendant Morillo has not been served.

Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on 

service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such 

service;” rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant 

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 53 Filed 06/21/18 Page 4 of 6
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

and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 

828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). Absent a showing of “good cause,” a complaint pending for 

over 90 days is subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow the Marshal to locate and serve 

defendant Morillo. Consequently, plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of 

defendant Morillo from this action without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-

22 (9th Cir. 1994) overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) 

(holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 

4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient information to 

effectuate service). Plaintiff will be required to remedy the service defect pursuant to the 

instructions below.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. The 

Clerk shall separately FILE plaintiff’s proposed SAC (dkt. no. 43-1). The Clerk is further 

DIRECTED to add J. Lewis, S. Gates, and Darrin Bright as defendants on the docket in this 

action.

2. Defendants Kumar, Gamboa, Lott, and Ross have been served and have appeared 

in this action. Defendants Chudy, Bourne, Villafuerte, Nguyen, and Morillo have been ordered 

served but have not yet appeared. The Court is still awaiting a returned summons from the United 

States Marshal showing whether Chudy, Bourne, Villafuerte, and Nguyen were successfully 

located and served. Defendants J. Lewis, S. Gates, and Darrin Bright have not yet been ordered 

served. Accordingly, the Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, 

without prepayment of fees, a copy of the SAC in this matter (dkt. no. 43-1), all attachments 

thereto, and a copy of this order on Darrin Bright at SVSP and on J. Lewis and S. Gates at 

California Correctional Health Care Service, P.O. Box 588500, Elk Grove, CA 95758. The 

Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on plaintiff.

3. Within ninety (90) days of this order, plaintiff must effect service on defendant

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 53 Filed 06/21/18 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Morillo, or submit to the Court sufficient information to identify and locate defendant Morillo 

such that the Marshal is able to effect service. If plaintiff fails to provide the court with the 

information requested within ninety (90) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff’s claim 

against defendant Morillo will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. The briefing schedule set forth in the Court’s May 1, 2018 order is VACATED. 

The Court will issue a new briefing schedule for dispositive motions when all service issues have 

been resolved.

This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 39, 40, 41, 43, and 44.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

6/21/2018

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 53 Filed 06/21/18 Page 6 of 6