Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01448/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01448-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARAONA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01448-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY DOE DEFENDANTS SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED

(ECF No. 44)

ORDER VACATING DEADLINE FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE WRITTEN 

NOTICE IDENTIFYING DOE 

DEFENDANTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

Plaintiff Durrell Anthony Puckett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint against: (1) Defendants Baraona, Burneszki, Leos, Hernandez, Diaz, and Doe 1 for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) Defendant Leos for sexual assault in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (3) Defendants A. Ruiz, Martinez, E. Ruiz, Meiers, 

Gutierrez, A. Cruz, K. Cronister, and Jane Doe Nurse for failure to protect in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment.

Defendants Baraona, Burneszki, Leos, Hernandez, Diaz, A. Ruiz, E. Ruiz, Gutierrez, K. 

Cronister, Martinez, Meiers, and A. Cruz have been electronically served, and their responses to 

the first amended compliant are currently due on or before September 19, 2022. (ECF Nos. 42, 

47.)

On March 17, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to provide the Court with written notice 

identifying Defendants Doe 1 and Jane Doe Nurse with enough information to locate those 

Case 1:21-cv-01448-KES-BAM Document 49 Filed 07/28/22 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

defendants for service of process. (ECF No. 21.) When Plaintiff failed to provide such written 

notice, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants Doe 1 and 

Jane Doe Nurse should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 44.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause, filed as 

“Objection to Plaintiff Failure to Prosecute with Request to Identify Doe Defendants When 

Discovery Cut off by Date Ends,” filed July 27, 2022. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff states that he 

received the Court’s order to show cause while on a 2-week suicide prevention watch with no 

mail. Plaintiff states that he cannot get the names of the Doe Defendants until discovery, and 

provides some limited identifying information about Defendants Jane Doe Nurse and Doe 1. (Id.)

The Court construes the response as a request for an extension of time to identify the Doe 

Defendants until discovery has opened. As the remaining defendants have been served but 

discovery has not yet opened, the Court finds it appropriate to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to 

identify the Doe Defendants. In light of the remaining defendants’ September 19, 2022 deadline 

to respond to the first amended complaint, at this time the Court will vacate the deadline for 

Plaintiff to identify the Doe Defendants. When discovery has opened, the Court will issue a 

separate order setting a new deadline for Plaintiff to submit written notice identifying the Doe 

Defendants for service of process.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The June 30, 2022 order to show cause, (ECF No. 44), is DISCHARGED; and

2. The deadline for Plaintiff to identify the Doe Defendants is VACATED, to be reset 

following the opening of discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01448-KES-BAM Document 49 Filed 07/28/22 Page 2 of 2