Nguon v. Ryan et al

- 1 - 25cv3422-DMS (BJW)
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HUNG DUONG NGUON,
CDCR #K-49649,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM C. RYAN, Superior Court
Judge, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25cv3422-DMS (BJW)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO
ORDER RETURN OF PROPERTY
Plaintiff Hung Duong Nguon is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 20, 2026, the Court dismissed his
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) for failing to state a claim, with
leave to amend on or before April 6, 2026. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff has now filed a Motion
for a 60-day extension of time to amend. (ECF No. 13.) He states that he is not in
possession of his legal papers, which along with his personal property were taken in
anticipation of a transfer to another prison which was cancelled. (Id. at 1-2.) He also
requests that the Court order Defendant Warden Acevedo to return his legal papers and to
order the Defendants to this action to make monetary restitution for any lost or stolen
personal property. (Id. at 3-4.)
Case 3:25-cv-03422-DMS-BJW Document 14 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

- 2 - 25cv3422-DMS (BJW)
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
Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff a 60-day extension of time to file
an amended complaint. He must do so no later than June 5, 2026. 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. See Crowley
v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining that a federal court lacks
personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless that defendant has been served with the
summons and complaint in accordance with Rule 4); Hussain v. Ponce, No. 18cv6579-
JFW (RAO), 2019 WL 1055235, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2019) (explaining that the court
lacks authority to issue injunctive relief where the court did not have jurisdiction over the
defendant who had not been served), citing Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347
(9th Cir. 1982) (“Defendants must be served in accordance with Rule 4[ ] of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, or there is no personal jurisdiction. . . . Neither actual notice nor
simply naming the person in the caption of the complaint will subject defendants to
personal jurisdiction if service was not made in substantial compliance with Rule 4.”)
(internal citations and footnote omitted).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03422-DMS-BJW Document 14 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2