Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01448/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01448-12/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-ADA-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING NOTICE TO OPT 

OUT OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 54)

ORDER LIFTING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

ORDER VACATING DECEMBER 7, 2022

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 52)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ISSUE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING 

ORDER

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

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against: (1) Defendants A. Baraona, R. Burnitzki,1 R. Leos, H. 

Hernandez, E. Diaz, and Doe 1 for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 

(2) Defendants R. Leos, for sexual assault in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 

(3) Defendants A. Ruiz, R. Martinez, E. Ruiz, G. Meier,2 R. Gutierrez, J. Cruz, K. Allison 

(Cronister), and Jane Doe Nurse for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All 

named defendants have answered the complaint.3 (ECF No. 51.)

1 Erroneously sued as “Burneszki.”

2 Erroneously sued as “Meiers.”

3 The deadline for Plaintiff to identify Defendants Doe 1 and Jane Doe Nurse with enough information to locate those 

defendants for service of process was vacated on July 28, 2022, (ECF No. 49), and will be reset with the opening of 

discovery in this action.

Case 1:21-cv-01448-KES-BAM Document 55 Filed 10/24/22 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

On September 20, 2022, the Court identified this case as an appropriate case for the postscreening ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) project, and stayed the action to allow the 

parties an opportunity to settle their dispute before the discovery process begins. (ECF No. 52.) 

The Court’s order granted Defendants time to investigate and determine whether to opt out of the 

post-screening ADR project.

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a settlement conference statement, filed under seal, 

which also indicated a desire to opt out of the settlement conference. (ECF No. 53.) On October 

20, 2022, Defendants filed a notice to opt out of settlement conference. (ECF No. 54.) 

Therefore, the stay is lifted, and the December 7, 2022, settlement conference is vacated. This 

case is now ready to proceed. 

If the parties wish to set a settlement conference with the Court at a later date, they should 

so inform the Court. However, the parties are also reminded that they are not precluded from 

negotiating a settlement without judicial assistance.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s request to vacate settlement conference, (ECF No. 54), is GRANTED;

2. The stay of this action, (ECF No. 52), is LIFTED;

3. The December 7, 2022 settlement conference is VACATED;

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to issue a discovery and scheduling order; 

and

5. The parties may proceed with discovery pursuant to the discovery and scheduling 

order to be issued by separate order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01448-KES-BAM Document 55 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 2