Hung Duong Nguon v. William C. Ryan, Superior Court Judge, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion for a 60-day extension to amend a dismissed complaint and a request for injunctive relief to return property. The court granted the extension but denied the request for injunctive relief because the defendants had not been served.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for 60-day extension of time to file an amended complaint granted“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff a 60-day extension of time to file an amended complaint.” | agree with court The court found good cause based on the plaintiff's statement that his legal papers were taken during a cancelled transfer. This is a discretionary determination consistent with the record provided. |
Request for court order directing return of legal papers and personal property denied“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for a court order directing Defendant Warden Acevedo to return his legal papers and personal property or for any Defendant to make restitution because no Defendant in this action has been served with the summons and complaint and the Court currently has no jurisdiction to order injunctive relief against any Defendant.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they have not been served with process. Without personal jurisdiction, the court cannot issue injunctive relief or order restitution against them. The cited authorities support this procedural prerequisite. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the fundamental jurisdictional requirement that service of process is necessary to establish personal jurisdiction before a court can enter judgment or issue injunctive relief against a defendant. The court cited appropriate Ninth Circuit authority to support this conclusion. The reasoning is direct and legally sound for the procedural posture described.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUNG DUONG NGUON, Case No. 25cv3422-DMS (BJW) CDCR #K-49649, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiff, 13 DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR vs. EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO 14 ORDER RETURN OF PROPERTY WILLIAM C. RYAN, Superior Court 15 Judge, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Hung Duong Nguon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 20, 2026, the Court dismissed his 21 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) for failing to state a claim, with 22 leave to amend on or before April 6, 2026. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff has now filed a Motion 23 for a 60-day extension of time to amend. (ECF No. 13.) He states that he is not in 24 possession of his legal papers, which along with his personal property were taken in 25 anticipation of a transfer to another prison which was cancelled. (Id. at 1-2.) He also 26 requests that the Court order Defendant Warden Acevedo to return his legal papers and to 27 order the Defendants to this action to make monetary restitution for any lost or stolen 28 personal property. (Id. at 3-4.) l Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff a 60-day extension of time to file 2 ||an amended complaint. He must do so no later than June 5, 2026. The Court DENIES 3 || Plaintiff's request for a court order directing Defendant Warden Acevedo to return his legal 4 ||papers and personal property or for any Defendant to make restitution because no 5 || Defendant in this action has been served with the summons and complaint and the Court 6 || currently has no jurisdiction to order injunctive relief against any Defendant. See Crowley 7 || v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining that a federal court lacks 8 ||personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless that defendant has been served with the 9 ||summons and complaint in accordance with Rule 4); Hussain v. Ponce, No. 18cv6579- 10 || JFW (RAO), 2019 WL 1055235, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2019) (explaining that the court 11 lacks authority to issue injunctive relief where the court did not have jurisdiction over the 12 defendant who had not been served), citing Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 13 || (9th Cir. 1982) (“Defendants must be served in accordance with Rule 4[ ] of the Federal 14 || Rules of Civil Procedure, or there is no personal jurisdiction. . . . Neither actual notice nor 15 ||}simply naming the person in the caption of the complaint will subject defendants to 16 personal jurisdiction if service was not made in substantial compliance with Rule 4.”) 17 || (Gnternal citations and footnote omitted). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: March 13, 2026 20 nm Sab > Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- ee