Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01641-11/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

JAVAUGHN ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTTINI,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-1641 DC CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On November 26, 

2024, the Court received a document styled “Motion to Reconsider,” filed by a prisoner named 

Durrell Puckett “as the attorney of record.” (ECF No. 59.) Mr. Puckett is not an attorney

licensed by the State of California1 and cannot represent a fellow prisoner. See Johns v. County 

of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his 

own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself”) (internal 

quotations and citation omitted); see also Jorss v. Schwarzenegger, 168 F. App’x 825, 826 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (finding the district court properly dismissed the complaint because the pro se prisoner 

plaintiff could not represent others). In the future, Mr. Puckett shall refrain from filing 

documents in this action.

1

 The State Bar of California maintains a list of all attorneys licensed to practice law in the State 

of California. https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/LicenseeSearch/ (accessed Dec. 2, 2024).

Case 2:22-cv-01641-DC-CSK Document 60 Filed 12/04/24 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

2

Usually, the Court would strike a filing made by another prisoner on behalf of the 

plaintiff. However, the motion is also signed by plaintiff. Therefore, the Court will address the 

motion.

First, although the motion is styled as a motion for reconsideration, the motion does not 

identify what specific order plaintiff seeks to have reconsidered. The motion does not comply 

with the Eastern District’s Local Rules, which require the moving party to address the following: 

(1) when and to what Judge or Magistrate Judge the prior motion was 

made;

(2) what ruling, decision, or order was made thereon;

(3) what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist 

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or 

what other grounds exist for the motion; and

(4) why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the 

prior motion.

Local Rule 230(j). Further, to the extent plaintiff asks the Court to view video footage at this 

time, plaintiff’s request is denied. There is no dispositive motion pending, or recently decided,

and the parties have filed pretrial statements. Thus, the motion for reconsideration is denied 

without prejudice. 

Second, plaintiff asks the Court to schedule a settlement conference. In his pretrial 

statement, defendant indicated he would be amenable to attending a settlement conference before 

this case is set for trial. (ECF No. 57 at 1, 8.) Therefore, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire was 

randomly assigned to hold a settlement conference in this case. Within fourteen days from the 

date of this order, counsel for defendant shall contact Judge Claire’s courtroom deputy, Jonathan 

Anderson, (916) 930-4199 or janderson@caed.uscourts.gov, to schedule a settlement conference 

in this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Inmate Durrell Puckett, #G-05549, shall refrain from filing documents in this case.

2. In addition to the parties, the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this 

order on Durrell Puckett, #G-05549, California State Prison, Corcoran, P.O. Box 

3476, Corcoran, CA 93212.

Case 2:22-cv-01641-DC-CSK Document 60 Filed 12/04/24 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

3

3. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 59) is denied.

4. Plaintiff’s request to set the matter for settlement conference (ECF No. 59) is granted. 

Within fourteen days from the date of this order, counsel for defendant shall contact 

Judge Claire’s courtroom deputy, Jonathan Anderson, (916) 930-4199 or 

janderson@caed.uscourts.gov, to schedule a settlement conference in this action. 

Dated: December 4, 2024

/1/robi1641.nonp

Case 2:22-cv-01641-DC-CSK Document 60 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 3