Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00476-6/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

DURELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEATH, et al.,

Defendants.

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

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. Currently pending before the court are plaintiff’s 

motion to amend his complaint and a motion for a settlement conference. ECF Nos. 36-37. 

Defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to amend, but oppose any 

settlement conference at this juncture. ECF Nos. 38-39.

This case is proceeding against various correctional officers and one medical employee at 

the California Medical Facility based on claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference for 

failing to treat plaintiff after an excessive use of force. By order dated November 15, 2022, the 

court advised plaintiff that his failure to protect claims against a John Doe Sergeant and a Jane 

Doe Licensed Vocational Nurse could not move forward to service until such time as “plaintiff 

has identified the actual identities of these Doe defendants and amended his complaint to 

substitute the defendants' actual names.” ECF No. 12 at 2, n. 1. 

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 43 Filed 10/12/23 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

In plaintiff’s motion to amend, he indicates that he just received his lost property 

containing his diary notes and 602 forms containing the names of additional defendants. ECF No. 

37 at 1. Plaintiff also filed a proposed second amended complaint along with his motion to 

amend. ECF No. 35. Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion to amend. ECF No. 39. The 

court will grant plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to attempt to cure the defects identified 

in the court’s prior screening order. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (noting that 

leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.”). The second amended 

complaint will be screened by separate order filed this same date.

In light of the filing of the second amended complaint, the court will sua sponte vacate all 

pending deadlines in the Discovery and Scheduling Order entered on July 14, 2023. These 

deadlines will be reset by subsequent order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 37) is granted. The court will 

screen the second amended complaint by separate order.

2. All pending deadlines in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF Nos. 34) 

are sua sponte vacated pending further order of the court. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference (ECF No. 36) is denied without 

prejudice to renewal at a later juncture should all parties indicate a willingness to 

participate.

Dated: October 12, 2023

12/puck0476.m2amend+modifyDSO

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 43 Filed 10/12/23 Page 2 of 2