Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00650/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00650-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MORENO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00650-WBS-JDP (PC)

SCREENING ORDER 

FINDING THAT THE FOURTH

AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES A

COGNIZABLE EIGHTH AMENDMENT 

EXCESSIVE CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS MORENO, HAYNES, 

SMITH, WILLIAMS, AND DOES FOR 

FAILURE TO PROTECT HIM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS BE 

DISMISSED

ECF No. 54

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Plaintiff brings this section 1983 case against defendants Moreno, Haynes, Smith, 

Williams, and two “Does” for failing to timely extract him from his cell after he set a fire within 

it. ECF No. 54 at 3. This claim is adequate to proceed. Plaintiff’s other claims against defendant 

Haynes are, for the reasons explained hereafter, insufficiently related to proceed in this action and 

Case 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 60 Filed 07/18/24 Page 1 of 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

2

I recommend they be dismissed so that plaintiff can bring them in a separate lawsuit.1 

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

1 Plaintiff also filed a motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 59, however, in light of 

the court’s decision to modify the discovery and scheduling order after the district judge reviews 

these recommendations, I will deny plaintiff’s motion as moot.

Case 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 60 Filed 07/18/24 Page 2 of 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

3

II. Analysis

As described above, plaintiff alleges that, on May 6, 2021, he set a fire in his cell while 

suffering from mental health issues. ECF No. 54 at 3. He claims that defendants Moreno, 

Haynes, Smith, Williams, and two “Does” failed to quickly remove him from his cell despite his

pleas for help. Id. These allegations are sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim against 

all of these defendants, though the “Does” cannot be served unless and until they are identified. 

In addition to this Eighth Amendment claim, plaintiff alleges that defendant Haynes 

issued a false rules violation report against him that accused him of being a sex offender and 

marking him as a target for prison gangs. Id. at 4. He claims that this act caused him emotional 

damage and violated the First Amendment insofar as it was issued in retaliation for a prison 

grievance he tried to file against Haynes. Id. at 4-5. This claim is not sufficiently related to the 

Eighth Amendment claim for failing to extract him from his cell. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a); 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus multiple claims against a single party 

are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against 

Defendant 2.”). Plaintiff attempts to link the two by alleging that it was Haynes’ false report 

caused him to become suicidal, but this connection is insufficient. 

The Federal Rules provide that joinder of multiple claims against more than one defendant 

is permissible where the defendants are liable for the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of 

transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Further, the claims must invoke “question[s]

of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Id. To accept plaintiff’s 

argument, any illegal act that damaged an inmate’s mental health could be joined with claims 

concerning the collateral consequences of those psychological issues. If a doctor were

deliberately indifferent to a plaintiff’s medical needs and, thereby, negatively affected his 

emotional outlook, could that failure to provide treatment be joined with a use of force claim that, 

occurring days later, arose because plaintiff’s deteriorated mental health rendered him incapable 

of complying with officers’ commands? The answer must be no, insofar as the two claims lack 

common questions of law or fact. Here, as pleaded, the question of whether Haynes issued a 

retaliatory grievance has little to no legal or factual overlap with the question of whether several 

Case 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 60 Filed 07/18/24 Page 3 of 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

4

officers, including Haynes, failed to timely extract plaintiff from his cell after he started a fire 

inside it. Plaintiff does not, for instance, allege that Haynes directed the other defendant officers 

not to act as a further instance of retaliation. Neither does he claim that the other officers were 

involved in the false rules report. Accordingly, I find the claims of retaliation and emotional 

damages claims against Haynes misjoined. They should be brought, if at all, in a separate suit. In 

so finding, I also conclude that forcing plaintiff to bring these claims separately would not 

prejudice him. The false report allegedly occurred in May 2021, and section 1983 claims for 

prisoners in California are governed by state law regarding the statute of limitations. Prisoners 

serving a term of less than life effectively have four years to file section 1983 claims, plus tolling 

for time they spent exhausting their administrative remedies. See Harris v. Munoz, No. 1:21-cv01372-JLT-HBK (PC), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50001, *19-20 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2023). Thus, it 

appears unlikely that plaintiff’s claims against Haynes are time-barred. Accordingly, I now 

recommend they be dismissed as misjoined. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“[A] court may, at any time, 

on just terms, add or drop a party.”).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The complaint states, for screening purposes, a viable Eighth Amendment failure to 

protect claim against defendants Moreno, Haynes, Smith, Williams, and two “Does.” Defendants 

shall file an answer to that complaint within the time contemplated by the federal rules. The 

“Doe” defendants cannot be served until they are identified.

2. The August 22, 2023 discovery and scheduling, ECF No. 35, is stayed pending 

resolution of these findings and recommendations. Following the district court’s order, I will 

modify dates in the discovery and scheduling order. 

3. In light of the stay on the discovery and scheduling order, plaintiff’s motion for an 

extension of time, ECF No. 59, is denied as moot.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the other claims against defendant Haynes be 

DISMISSED without prejudice as misjoined.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 

Case 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 60 Filed 07/18/24 Page 4 of 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

5

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00650-JDP Document 60 Filed 07/18/24 Page 5 of 5