Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03516/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03516-8/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 DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

PROVIDE COURT WITH MORE 

INFORMATION FOR DEFENDANT 

VILLAFUERTE

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) 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. 

On July 2, 2018, the summons for defendant Jennifer Villafuerte was returned unexecuted 

with the following remark by the United States Marshal: “Deft. is not employed @ SVSP or 

CDCR CCHCS. Unable to locate.” Dkt. No. 62. Accordingly, defendant Villafuerte 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 

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).

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 68 Filed 07/09/18 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

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

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

defendant Villafuerte 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).

Accordingly, within ninety (90) days of this order, plaintiff must effect service on 

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

defendant Villafuerte 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 Villafuerte will be dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

7/9/2018

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 68 Filed 07/09/18 Page 2 of 2