Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054-16/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 GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

(Doc. No. 86)

 

On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff Durrell Anthony Puckett filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment on his Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement and Fourteenth Amendment equal 

protection claims. (Doc. No. 82, “MSJ”). On May 1, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Extend the Time to File an Exhaustion-Based 

Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 86, “Motion”). Defendant asks the Court to stay all 

deadlines on Plaintiff’s MSJ because Defendants have only recently appeared in this action, more 

than five months remain in discovery, and Defendants have had no meaningful opportunity to 

conduct discovery including deposing Plaintiff. (See generally id.). Defendants also request the 

Court extend the deadline for filing an exhaustion-based MSJ to be concurrent with the 

dispositive motions deadline to promote judicial economy, because the exhaustion-based motion 

will not be case-dispositive. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff has not filed any response to the Motion and the 

time to do so has expired. (See docket); see also Local Rule 230(l) (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 87 Filed 05/31/24 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

I. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Stay of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, “[i]f a nonmovant [in a 

motion for summary judgment] shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it 

cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may (1) defer considering the 

motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) 

issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In order to obtain a continuance under 

Rule 56(d), Plaintiff must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would 

reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment. Tatum v. City and 

County of Sacramento, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006); Tuvalu v. Woodford, 2007 WL 

2900175, at 1–4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2007).

Defendants requests the court stay Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment until 

Defendants file their own summary judgment motion, or until the dispositive motion filing 

deadline passes. (Doc. No. 86 at 3). They argue that doing so is necessary to allow Defendants 

sufficient time to oppose Plaintiff’s motion and will promote judicial economy. (Id.). In 

particular, they have not yet deposed Plaintiff, and need additional time to do so and to prepare 

declarations in opposition to Plaintiff’s MSJ. (Id.). Defense counsel asserts these facts under 

penalty of perjury in an attached affidavit. (Id. at 6).

The Court finds that Defendants sufficiently set forth good cause under Rule 56(d) to 

warrant a stay of the deadlines for Plaintiff’s MSJ until Defendants either file their own 

dispositive motion or the January 10, 2025 dispositive motions deadline passes.

B. Motion for Extension of Time to Exhaustion-Based Motion Deadline

Defendants also seek an extension of time to file an exhaustion-based motion beyond the 

current deadline of May 6, 2024. (Id. at 4). Ordinarily, as Defendants note, exhaustion-based 

motions for summary judgment are brought early in litigation to dispose of matters where the 

court effectively lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of a claim. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 

1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014). However, where, as here, a defendant makes an exhaustion-based 

motion only as to some of the claims in a suit, the same rationale does not apply. The Court 

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 87 Filed 05/31/24 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

agrees with Defendants that filing a single dispositive motion is appropriate here and promotes 

judicial economy. The Court therefore finds good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

16(b)(4) to extend the deadline to file an exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 86) 

is GRANTED as set forth herein.

2. Defendants shall file their opposition, if any, to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment no later than January 10, 2025.

3. Defendants’ request to extend the deadline for filing an exhaustion-based motion for 

summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their exhaustion-based 

motion for summary judgment, if any, no later than January 10, 2025. 

Dated: May 30, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 87 Filed 05/31/24 Page 3 of 3