Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054-19/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BARRIOS, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

AMEND AND MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REFILE

MISFILED PLEADING

(Doc. No. 92, 96)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Durrell Anthony Puckett’s Motion to Amend filed 

October 21, 2024. (Doc. No. 92). Plaintiff’s Motion is accompanied by a lodged fourth amended 

complaint. (Doc. No. 93). Plaintiff proceeds on his third amended complaint that alleges an 

Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against Defendants Baraona, J. Barrios, 

Gaxiola, T. Campbell, White, and Hernandez. (Doc. No. 73). To the extent discernable in his 

lodged fourth amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add a new defendant, K. Allison as a 

defendant, and seeks to allege an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. (See generally

Doc. No. 93). Plaintiff is not permitted leave to amend his operative complaint as a matter of 

course. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) permits the amendment of a pleading only once 

as a matter of course. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) allows Plaintiff to amend his 

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 98 Filed 11/07/24 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

complaint, “only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). Defendants’ opposition, if any, the Motion to Amend is due no later than November 

12, 2024.

1

 Local Rule 230(l).

Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal filed November 4, 2024. 

(Doc. No. 96).2 Plaintiff seeks to dismiss with prejudice Defendants Barrios and Gaxiola. (Id.). 

The Court construes the Motion to Dismiss as filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure because Defendants Barrios and Gaxiola previously answered the operative 

third amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (“Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an 

action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court 

considers proper”); see also Thacker v. AT&T Corp., 2021 WL 3206202, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 

2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 4168533 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2021). 

Defendants’ opposition, if any, is due no later than November 25, 2024. Local Rule 230(l). 

Absent consent, both motions require a magistrate judge to address the requested relief by 

findings and recommendations to the district court. See, e.g., Jones v. Ayon, 2024 WL 4625809, 

at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024) (adopting magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to 

granting Rule 41(a)(2) motion); see also Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1163 (9th Cir. 

2015) (noting that denial of a motion to amend may be dispositive and thus require a magistrate 

judge to issue findings and recommendations). For matter of judicial efficiency, the Court will 

direct Defendants to file an expedited opposition or statement on non-opposition to the Motion to 

Dismiss no later than November 15, 2024 in order that the undersigned may address both 

Motions in a consolidated findings and recommendation, if appropriate. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendants shall file responses to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 92) no later 

than November 12, 2024 and Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. No. 

96) no later than November 15, 2024.

1 The court is closed on Monday, November 11, 2024, in recognition of Veteran’s Day, a federal holiday.

2 Upon review of the Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds the Clerk inadvertently filed Plaintiff’s 

Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment as part of the Motion to Dismiss. The Court will direct the 

Clerk to correct the misfiled pleading.

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 98 Filed 11/07/24 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

2. Within 10 days of this Order, Defendants shall return the Consent/Decline to 

Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge form available on the court’s website under Civil 

Forms: https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/forms/civil.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to refile Plaintiff’s misfiled pleading titled “Supplement 

for Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 96 at 2) as a separate pleading and 

delete the corresponding pleading from the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. 

Dated: November 7, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 98 Filed 11/07/24 Page 3 of 3