Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03516/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03516-7/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 DEFENDANTS 

NGUYEN AND CHUDY

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. 

On June 22, 2018, the summons for defendant Dr. Thao Nguyen was returned unexecuted 

with the following remark by the United States Marshal: “CDCR responded that deft. is not at 

institution and/or cannot accept. Insufficient information to further endeavor.” Dkt. No. 55. On 

June 25, 2018, the summons for defendant Dr. Joseph Chudy was returned unexecuted with the 

following remark by the United States Marshal: “Unable to locate Dr. Joseph Chudy. Per our info, 

Chudy is not at Salinas State Prison. Attempt was made to serve at Nationwide Medical but the 

company [is] no longer in business since 6/13.” Dkt. No. 56. Accordingly, defendants Nguyen 

and Chudy have 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 58 Filed 06/27/18 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

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 

defendants Nguyen and Chudy. Consequently, plaintiff must remedy the situation or face 

dismissal of defendants Nguyen and Chudy 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 

defendants Nguyen and Chudy, or submit to the Court sufficient information to identify and locate 

defendants Nguyen and Chudy 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 defendants Nguyen and Chudy 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

6/27/2018

Case 4:17-cv-03516-HSG Document 58 Filed 06/27/18 Page 2 of 2