Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00525/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00525-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL A. PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. RONALD VOGEL, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

MOTION AS PROCEDURALLY 

DEFICIENT, AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ RULE 56(D) MOTIONS AS 

MOOT

(Docs. 51, 52, 54, and 55)

Plaintiff Durrell A. Puckett, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 12, 2013. This action for damages is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, and Johnson for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, Johnson, 

Dean, Bolander, Abadia, Lockhart, Zamora, Sisneros, Campos, and Callow for excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Sanchez, Vogel, and Johnson for 

violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

In response, Defendant Zamora filed a Rule 56(d) motion on March 9, 2015, and Defendants 

Sanchez, Vogel, Johnson, Dean, Bolander, Lockhart, Sisneroz, Campos, and Callow filed a Rule 

56(d) motion on March 24, 2015. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302; and on May 20, 

Case 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO Document 64 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 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

2

2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending Plaintiff’s 

motion be denied, without prejudice, on the ground that it is procedurally deficient and 

Defendants’ motions be denied as moot. The parties did not file objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed on May 20, 2015, are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed on March 4, 2015, is DENIED, 

without prejudice, on procedural grounds; and

3. Defendants’ Rule 56(d) motions, filed on March 9, 2015, and March 24, 2015, are 

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00525-AWI-SKO Document 64 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 2