Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00476-3/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. 

HEATH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-00476-CKD P

ORDER

 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local 

Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On May 16, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to 

amend based on his failure to sign the complaint. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

is now before the court for screening. ECF No. 10. 

As plaintiff was previously advised, the court is required to screen complaints brought by 

prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 

prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

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

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/15/22 Page 1 of 6
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. Allegations in the First Amended Complaint

At all times relevant to the allegations in the amended complaint, plaintiff was an inmate 

at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”). Defendants are various correctional officers and 

medical staff employed at the CMF.

Plaintiff alleges that excessive force was used against him by various correctional officers 

on two separate dates while he was both restrained and compliant with all orders. Plaintiff also 

asserts that R.N. Gonzalez failed to provide treatment for his injuries even though she saw blood 

on his face following the February 18, 2022 use of force. A John Doe Sergeant and Jane Doe 

Licensed Vocational Nurse failed to intervene to protect him during the April 9, 2022 incident.1 

II. Legal Standards 

The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 

in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 

Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must 

link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 

plaintiff's federal rights.

III. Analysis 

After conducting the required screening, the court finds that plaintiff may proceed on the 

1

Although the use of Doe defendants is acceptable to withstand dismissal of a complaint at the 

initial screening stage, they cannot be served with process until identified by their real names. 

See Mosier v. California Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 2012 WL 2577524, at *3 (E.D. 

Cal. July 3, 2012); Robinett v. Correctional Training Facility, 2010 WL 2867696, at *4 (N.D. Cal.

July 20, 2010). Therefore, service will not be ordered on either of these Eighth Amendment 

failure to protect claims until plaintiff has identified the actual identities of these Doe defendants 

and amended his complaint to substitute the defendants' actual names. The burden is on plaintiff 

to promptly discover the full names of these Doe defendants. Robinett, 2010 WL 2867696 at *4. 

 

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/15/22 Page 2 of 6
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

Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Heath, H. Williams, Gorsi, Marfil, 

Easton, Dunlap, Lockwood, and Martinez. Plaintiff has also stated an Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference claim against defendant R. Gonzalez. However, the first amended 

complaint does not link defendant Clark to any of the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff 

has the option of proceeding immediately on the Eighth Amendment claims against all the named 

defendants except defendant Clark, or he may attempt to cure the defects against defendant Clark 

by filing a second amended complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 

2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any 

deficiency in their complaints). If plaintiff chooses to proceed on the Eighth Amendment claims 

found cognizable in this screening order, the court will construe this as a request to voluntarily 

dismiss defendant Clark pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint should he decide that he does not 

want to immediately proceed on the Eighth Amendment claims found cognizable in this screening 

order. 

 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in 

specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the 

claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/15/22 Page 3 of 6
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

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

I. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 

intended as legal advice.

Some of the allegations in the amended complaint state claims for relief against the 

defendants, and some do not. You must decide if you want to (1) proceed immediately on the 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Heath, H. Williams, Gorsi, Marfil, 

Easton, Dunlap, Lockwood, and Martinez as well as the Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference claim against defendant R. Gonzalez; or, (2) amend the complaint to fix the problems 

identified in this order with respect to defendant Clark. Once you decide, you must complete the 

attached Notice of Election form by checking only one box and returning it to the court.

Once the court receives the Notice of Election, it will issue an order telling you what you 

need to do next. If you do not return this Notice, the court will construe this failure as consent to 

dismiss defendant Clark and will order service of the complaint only on the claims found 

cognizable in this screening order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on the Eighth Amendment excessive 

force claims against defendants Heath, H. Williams, Gorsi, Marfil, Easton, Dunlap, Lockwood, 

and Martinez as well as the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant R. 

Gonzalez.

2. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened 

amended complaint or whether he wants time to file a second amended complaint to fix the 

deficiencies with respect to defendant Clark.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/15/22 Page 4 of 6
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

3. If plaintiff fails to return the attached Notice of Election within the time provided, the 

court will construe this failure as consent to dismiss defendant Clark and proceed only on the 

cognizable claims identified in this screening order.

Dated: November 15, 2022

12/puck0476.option.docx

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/15/22 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

HEATH, et al., 

 Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-00476-CKD

NOTICE OF ELECTION 

 

Check only one option:

______ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 

against defendants Heath, H. Williams, Gorsi, Marfil, Easton, Dunlap, Lockwood, and Martinez 

as well as the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant R. Gonzalez.

Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses defendant Clark. 

_____ Plaintiff wants time to file a second amended complaint. 

DATED: 

 ____________________ 

 Plaintiff 

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 12 Filed 11/15/22 Page 6 of 6