Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01448/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01448-21/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-NODJ-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

ADJUDICATION OF MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RENEWED 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(ECF No. 78)

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; 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.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for adjudication of his motion for 

summary judgment and/or trial scheduling order and renewed motion for appointment of counsel, 

filed February 20, 2024. (ECF No. 78.)

///

1 Erroneously sued as “Burneszki.”

2 Erroneously sued as “Meiers.”

Case 1:21-cv-01448-KES-BAM Document 79 Filed 02/23/24 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

Plaintiff first requests that the Court rule on his pending summary judgment motion and 

set a trial date. The request is denied, without prejudice. On February 16, 2024, the Court issued 

an order granting Plaintiff a final extension of time to file a motion to substitute the identities of 

the two Doe Defendants and a proposed second amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 

77.) Until Plaintiff files his response to that order, the operative complaint in this action will not 

be set. The Court will address Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as appropriate once the 

pleadings in this action are settled.

With respect to Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff states that 

he is a mental health care patient at the second highest level of care CDCR has to offer. (ECF 

No. 78.) Plaintiff is on and off unstable, and sometimes hears voices when his meds wear off or 

he starts to hallucinate. Plaintiff receives about 4 hours of group therapy a week, with individual 

counseling once every 4-5 months. Plaintiff’s last panic attack/suicide attempt was 12/17/2023. 

Plaintiff overdosed a swallowed a razor from depression and still suffers from severe depression, 

racing thoughts, voices, auditory hallucinations when not occupied or medication compliant. A 

pro bono panel lawyer will enable Plaintiff to pay the expenses of witnesses that are not covered 

by his in forma pauperis status, as well as contact possible witnesses or hire a private 

investigator. Plaintiff states he was recently granted counsel in a pending appeal, Puckett v. 

Agboli, Case No. 23-3009.

Plaintiff is reminded that he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 

this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other 

grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to 

represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. 

of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may 

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 

1525. 

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek 

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether 

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on 

Case 1:21-cv-01448-KES-BAM Document 79 Filed 02/23/24 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

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the 

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request, but does not find the required exceptional 

circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff has made serious allegations which, if proved, 

would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed 

almost daily by prisoners suffering from severe mental health conditions and possess limited 

funds. These plaintiffs also must litigate their cases without the assistance of counsel.

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that 

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although Plaintiff’s complaint was found to state a 

cognizable claim, this does not mean there is a likelihood of success on the merits. Finally, based 

on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that Plaintiff cannot adequately 

articulate his claims.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for adjudication of his motion for summary judgment and/or trial 

scheduling order, (ECF No. 78), is DENIED, without prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff’s renewed motion to appoint counsel, (ECF No. 78), is DENIED, without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01448-KES-BAM Document 79 Filed 02/23/24 Page 3 of 3