Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054-8/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 ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BARRIOS, D. WHITE, H. 

HERNANDEZ and FNU GUTIERREZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00054-HBK (PC)

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO EARLY 

ADR AND STAY OF CASE 

DEADLINE TO OPT OUT DUE BY: 

OCTOBER 6, 2023

Plaintiff Durrell Anthony Puckett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis on his Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 9, 12). As set forth 

in the Court’s February 17, 2023 Screening Order, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint stated a 

cognizable Eighth claim against Defendants J. Barrios, D. White, H. Hernandez, and FNU 

Gutierrez. (Doc. No. 17). 

The Court refers all civil rights cases filed by pro se individuals to early Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) to try to resolve such cases more expeditiously and less expensively. 

See also Local Rule 270. In appropriate cases, defense counsel from the California Attorney

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 38 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 3
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

General’s Office have agreed to participate in early ADR. No claims, defenses, or objections are 

waived by the parties’ participation. 

Attempting to resolve this matter early through settlement now would save the parties the 

time and expense of engaging in lengthy and costly discovery and preparing substantive 

dispositive motions. The Court therefore will STAY this action for 90 DAYS to allow the parties 

an opportunity to investigate Plaintiff’s claims, meet and confer, and engage in settlement 

discussions, or agree to participate in an early settlement conference conducted by a magistrate 

judge. The stay does not relieve Defendant from their obligations to timely file a response to 

the operative complaint as screened. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. The Court presumes that all postscreening civil rights cases assigned to the undersigned will proceed to a settlement conference at 

some point. If after investigating Plaintiff’s claims and meeting and conferring, either party finds 

that a settlement conference would be a waste of resources, the party may opt out of the early 

settlement conference. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. This action will remain STAYED until further order to allow the parties an 

opportunity to settle their dispute. If Defendant Gutierrez is served, he may respond to the 

operative complaint as screened during the stay period, but the parties may not file other 

pleadings or motions during the stay period. Further, the parties shall not engage in formal 

discovery until the Court issues a Scheduling and Discovery Order.

2. Within 90 days from the date on this Order, or no later than October 6, 2023, the 

parties shall file a notice if they object to proceeding to an early settlement conference or if they 

believe that settlement is not currently achievable. 

3. If neither party has opted out of settlement by the expiration of the objection 

period, the Court will assign this matter by separate Order to a United States Magistrate Judge, 

other than the undersigned, for conducting the settlement conference. 

4. If the parties reach a settlement prior to the settlement conference, they SHALL 

file a Notice of Settlement as required by Local Rule 160 

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 38 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 3
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. The Clerk of Court shall serve Deputy Attorney General James Mathison and 

Supervising Deputy Attorney Lawrence Bragg with a copy of Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint (Doc. No. 12); the Court’s Screening Order (Doc. No. 17); and this Order.

6. The parties must keep the Court informed of their current addresses during the stay 

and the pendency of this action. Any changes of address must be reported promptly by filing a 

Notice of Change of Address with the Clerk of Court. See Local Rule 182(f). 

Dated: July 7, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 38 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 3