Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00476-9/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

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEATH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-0476-DJC-CKD-P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without an attorney 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, motion to compel, motion for summary judgment, and motion for default 

judgment. ECF Nos. 57-58, 62, 64. Defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment. ECF No. 67. The court addresses each of these pending motions in turn. 

I. Factual and Procedural History

This case is proceeding on the second amended complaint raising the following claims: 1) 

an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendants Heath, Williams, Gorsi, Marfil, 

Dunlap, Easton, Martinez, and Lockwood; 2) an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim 

against defendant Maristilla; 3) an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against 

defendant Gonzalez; 4) a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Heath, Martinez, 

Lockwood, Greenburg, and Mesa; and, 5) a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim 

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 6
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

against defendants Heath, Martinez, Lockwood, and Jane Doe Sergeant. ECF No. 44 (screening 

order). By order dated October 12, 2023, the court advised plaintiff that his claim against a Jane

Doe Sergeant could not move forward to service until such time as plaintiff identified her actual 

identity and amended his complaint to substitute this defendant’s true name.” ECF No. 44 at 2, n. 

1. 

II. Pending Motions

A. Motion to Compel

Plaintiff filed a motion labeled as a motion to compel. ECF No. 58. However, in this 

pleading, plaintiff requests a 45 day extension of time to serve defendants with a request for 

production of documents. The court therefore construes this motion as a request to modify the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order. By order dated July 29, 2024, the court vacated the discovery 

and dispositive motions deadlines in this case pending resolution of plaintiff’s motion to amend. 

ECF No. 60. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel, construed as a motion to modify the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order, is denied as unnecessary. As part of this order, the court will 

reset the discovery deadline in this case. 

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment against the defendants named in his 

proposed third amended complaint. ECF No. 62. Defendants opposed the motion asserting that 

the motion is premature because the defendants who have appeared have yet to conduct 

discovery. ECF No. 67. As discovery has not been completed as to any defendant in this action, 

the court agrees that the motion for summary judgment is premature. Therefore, plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to refiling upon completion of 

discovery. 

C. Motion for Default Judgment

Plaintiff filed a third request for entry of default judgment against defendants Atinja, 

Amor, Johnson, Williams, Webb, Rogers, Perdigones, Medina, and Lavor.

1

 ECF No. 64. 

1

 On October 16, 2024, the Clerk of Court declined plaintiff’s prior request for entry of default 

judgment because plaintiff’s motion to amend to add these defendants was still pending. 

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff is advised that default judgment against these defendants is not appropriate because they 

were never named in the second amended complaint that was ordered served on October 12, 

2023. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is denied. 

D. Motion for Leave to Amend

In his motion for leave to amend the complaint, plaintiff indicates that he is seeking to add 

the true names of the John/Jane Doe defendants in this case. ECF No. 57 at 1. However, a 

review of plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint still does not identify the true name of the only 

Jane Doe Sergeant in this case. ECF No. 57 at 14. Instead, the proposed amended complaint 

adds ten new defendants who plaintiff alleges failed to protect him from the use of excessive 

force, gave him illegal shots, or held him down while he was given the illegal shots. ECF No. 57

at 9-15. The factual allegations against these new defendants in the proposed amended complaint 

do not contain sufficient detail to sufficiently link them to any asserted violation of plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights. Plaintiff does not explain why the shots given to him by these defendants 

were illegal. He just asserts in a conclusory fashion that they violated his rights. Furthermore, 

based on the attachments to the motion to amend, these new defendants were added because they 

were identified as witnesses in discovery materials. ECF No. 57 at 8. No further details are 

provided as to which specific events each witnessed or whether these individuals were capable of 

protecting plaintiff from any of the asserted uses of excessive force. Therefore, the allegations in 

plaintiff's proposed amended complaint are too vague and conclusory to determine whether they

state a claim for relief against the 10 new named defendants.

III. Legal Standards

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend a complaint after a 

responsive pleading has been filed may be allowed by leave of the court and “shall be freely 

given when justice so requires.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Liberality in 

granting a plaintiff leave to amend is subject to the qualification that the amendment not cause 

undue prejudice to the defendant, is not sought in bad faith, and is not futile. Additionally, the 

district court may consider the factor of undue delay.” Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 

(9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Deciding whether to grant leave to amend is a matter of the 

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 6
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

4

court’s discretion, which “is particularly broad” in cases such as this one where the plaintiff has 

previously amended the complaint. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, 

Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

IV. Analysis

In this case, the motion to amend turns on the futility factor. After reviewing the proposed 

third amended complaint and attachments, the court cannot discern sufficient factual allegations 

against any of the new 10 defendants which state a valid claim for relief. Without any cognizable 

claim against these additional defendants, amending the complaint is futile because they would 

simply be screened out by the court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Jackson v. 

Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that a motion to amend may be 

denied as futile); Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Futility alone can 

justify the denial of a motion to amend.”). For this reason, the undersigned recommends denying 

plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint to add 10 new named defendants. This 

recommendation is without prejudice to plaintiff filing a motion to amend the complaint to 

identify the true name of Jane Doe Sergeant who threatened plaintiff on April 9, 2022 based on 

his sexual orientation. 

V. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 

intended as legal advice. 

The court has reviewed your pending motions and determined that neither a default 

judgment or summary judgment as to any defendant is appropriate at this stage of the case. The 

discovery and dispositive motions deadlines are being reset to allow you to proceed with the 

second amended complaint as screened by the court. 

After reviewing your proposed third amended complaint, the undersigned recommends 

that your motion for leave to amend be denied as futile. The proposed amended complaint does 

not contain any valid claim for relief against the new 10 defendants. If you disagree with this 

recommendation, you may file a written explanation as to why it is not correct. Label your 

explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and file it 

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/09/24 Page 4 of 6
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

5

within 14 days from the date of this order.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 58), properly construed as a motion to modify 

the discovery and scheduling order, is denied as unnecessary. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 62) is denied without prejudice as 

prematurely filed.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 64) is denied because defendants 

Atinja, Amor, Johnson, Williams, Webb, Rogers, Perdigones, Medina, and Lavor were not named 

as defendants in the second amended complaint which is the operative pleading in this case. 

4. The discovery deadline is reset to April 9, 2025. Any motions necessary to compel 

discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later than sixty days prior to that date (i.e. 

February 8, 2025).

5. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 

July 9, 2025.

6. Pretrial conference and trial dates will be set, as appropriate, following adjudication of 

any dispositive motion, or the expiration of time for filing such a motion.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 57) be denied without prejudice to renewal once 

plaintiff identifies the real name of the Jane Doe Sergeant in the second amended complaint.

2. This matter be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/09/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: December 9, 2024

12/puck0476.m2amend+msj

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00476-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 12/09/24 Page 6 of 6