The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, No. 1:21-cv-01448-KES-FRS (BAM) (PC)
12 Plaintiff, TENTATIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
13 v.
Deadlines:
14 BARAONA, et al.,
Motion in Limine Filing: April 7, 2026
15 Defendants. Oppositions: April 21, 2026
16 Proposed Jury Instructions/
Verdict Form: April 14, 2026
17 Objections: April 28, 2026
18 Proposed Voir Dire: May 5, 2026
19 Exhibits due to Court: May 5, 2026
20 Trial Briefs: May 5, 2026
21 Trial Confirmation Hearing:
May 4, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.,
22 Courtroom 6
23 Jury trial: May 12, 2026, at 8:30 a.m.,
Courtroom 6
24
Estimated Trial Time: 3–4 days
25
26
27
28
1 On January 26, 2026, the Court conducted a final pretrial conference. Plaintiff Durrell
2 Anthony Puckett appeared pro se. David E. Kuchinsky appeared as counsel for defendants
3 Baraona, Burnitzki, Leos, Hernandez, Diaz, A. Ruiz, E. Ruiz, Meier, Gutierrez, Allison
4 (Cronister), and Price. Having considered the parties’ pretrial statements and views, the Court
5 issues this tentative pretrial order.
6 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
7 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for trial on plaintiff’s claims
8 against: (1) Defendants Baraona, Burnitzki, Leos, Hernandez, and Diaz for excessive force in
9 violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) Defendant Leos for sexual assault in violation of the
10 Eighth Amendment; and (3) Defendants A. Ruiz, E. Ruiz, Meier, Gutierrez, Allison (Cronister),
11 and Price for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
12 I. JURISDICTION/ VENUE
13 Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Jurisdiction is not contested.
14 The events at issue took place in Corcoran, California. Accordingly, venue is proper pursuant to
15 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this action
16 occurred in this district. Venue is also not contested.
17 II. JURY TRIAL
18 Defendants demand a jury trial. The jury will consist of eight jurors.
19 III. UNDISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES1
20 1. On January 20, 2021, Plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated by the California
21 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at California State Prison,
22 Corcoran in Building 3A03.
23 2. Defendants are employees of CDCR who were assigned to California State Prison,
24 Corcoran, and were acting within the scope of their employment during the events
25 in this case.
26
27
28 1 The parties agreed at the pretrial conference that the following facts were undisputed.
1 3. At approximately 10:08 a.m. on January 20, 2021, Defendants Leos and Burnitzki
2 were escorting Plaintiff back to his cell after a group therapy appointment.
3 4. During the escort, an incident occurred, and Defendants Leos and Burnitzki used
4 force on Plaintiff while Baraona was present.
5 5. After the first incident, Plaintiff was escorted to a holding cell by Defendants
6 Hernandez and Diaz.
7 6. Once they reached the holding cell, another incident occurred, and Defendants
8 Hernandez and Diaz used force on Plaintiff.
9 IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES
10 Plaintiff identifies the following disputed factual issues:
11 1. Sexually being battered, beaten three times, others condoning it. All done while
12 Plaintiff was no threat and in cuffs out of reprisal.
13 2. Whether Plaintiff was involved in an incident involving all defendants.
14 Defendants identify the following disputed factual issues:
15 1. Whether Plaintiff attacked Defendants Leos and Burnitzki during the escort back
16 to his cell.
17 2. Whether Defendants Leos, Baraona, or Burnitzki used force on Plaintiff when he
18 posed no threat.
19 3. Whether Plaintiff attacked Defendants Hernandez and Diaz at the holding cell.
20 4. Whether Hernandez or Diaz used force on Plaintiff when he posed no threat.
21 5. Whether Defendants A. Ruiz, E. Ruiz, Meier, Gutierrez, or Allison, or Price
22 observed any excessive force being used on Plaintiff.
23 6. The nature, extent, and cause of any injuries sustained by Plaintiff.
24 7. Whether Plaintiff was medically evaluated after these incidents and returned to his
25 housing unit.
26 V. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES / MOTIONS IN LIMINE
27 The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in advance of the trial that certain
28 evidence should or should not be admitted at trial. The Court will grant a motion in limine
1 precluding use of evidence only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not
2 admissible for any valid purpose. The Court does not encourage the filing of motions in limine
3 unless they are addressed to issues that can realistically be resolved by the Court prior to trial and
4 without dependence on other evidence which will be introduced by the parties at trial.
5 In advance of filing any motion in limine, the parties shall meet and confer to determine
6 whether they can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine. The parties shall
7 exhaust efforts to resolve such evidentiary disputes prior to filing a motion in limine and shall
8 include in any such motion a certification concerning their meet and confer efforts.
9 Any motion in limine shall be filed no later than April 7, 2026. The motion must clearly
10 identify the nature of the evidence that the moving party seeks to have admitted or seeks to
11 prohibit the other side from offering at trial. Any opposition to a motion in limine shall be filed
12 no later than April 21, 2026. After reviewing the motions and any opposition briefs, the Court
13 will notify the parties if a reply brief is necessary. As such, parties shall not file any reply briefs
14 without Court approval. The Court will also notify the parties if it will hear argument on any
15 motions in limine prior to the first day of trial. The parties are reminded they may still object to
16 the introduction of evidence during trial.
17 Plaintiff identifies the following disputed evidentiary issues.
18 1. Only plaintiff and his witnesses should say they are convicted felons, which should
19 satisfy impeachment concerns. Plaintiff objects to defendants stating the reasons
20 for the convictions.
21 2. Plaintiff objects to the use of rules violation and incident reports not pertaining to
22 the claims in this action. If defendants are allowed to introduce such reports,
23 plaintiff states he should be permitted to introduce grievances filed against the
24 defendants. Plaintiff notes that several defense witnesses have been written up or
25 sued by inmates. He argues he should be allowed to access that information if
26 defendants are allowed to use his history against him.
27 ///
28 ///
1 Defendants identify the following disputed evidentiary issues:
2 1. Defendants intend to file motions in limine to preclude Plaintiff from testifying,
3 eliciting testimony, or introducing evidence of the following matters: (a) Plaintiff’s
4 own lay opinions regarding causation, diagnosis, or prognosis for any alleged
5 injuries Plaintiff claims are related to Defendants’ purported conduct; (b) any
6 dismissed claims or Defendants; (c) hearsay statements, and documents containing
7 hearsay statements, which Defendants anticipate Plaintiff may seek to introduce
8 based on his previous statements and filings in this case; (d) Defendants’
9 involvement in other lawsuits or incidents alleging misconduct; (e) offers to
10 compromise; and (f) CDCR’s indemnification of an adverse judgment.
11 2. Defendants will file a motion in limine to permit them to introduce evidence of
12 Plaintiff’s, and any incarcerated witness’s, felony convictions and sentences for
13 impeachment purposes.
14 3. Defendants reserve objections to specific testimony and exhibits until such time as
15 Defendants have had the opportunity to hear such testimony and examine such
16 exhibits. Defendants will also file specific objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits once
17 they have been exchanged with Defendants.
18 VI. SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION
19 Defendants identify the following special factual information pursuant to Local Rule
20 281(b)(6)(iv):
21 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used excessive force against him, sexually assaulted him,
22 and failed to intervene on January 20, 2021. Plaintiff brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
23 alleging a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations.
24 Defendants contend that the force used was reasonable and necessary, and no assault happened.
25 Defendants are informed and believe that Plaintiff is thirty-nine years old. Defendants
26 deny Plaintiff suffered any significant injuries. Defendants assert that Plaintiff did not incur any
27 medical expenses, did not suffer any disability, did not have any earnings before the incident, and
28 did not suffer any earnings loss after the incident.
1 VII. RELIEF SOUGHT
2 Plaintiff’s position:
3 Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to a lower-level facility, compensatory damages
4 (past and future), and punitive damages.
5 Defendants’ position:
6 Defendants seek judgment in their favor and an award of costs.
7 VIII. POINTS OF LAW
8 The claims and defenses arise under federal law.
9 1. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a cause of action under 42
10 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
11 2. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a cause of action under 42
12 U.S.C. § 1983 for sexual assault in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
13 3. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a cause of action under 42
14 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
15 4. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof for an award of punitive
16 damages.
17 Defendant also identifies the following additional points of law:
18 1. Action Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
19 This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is governed by federal law. To state a claim under § 1983, a
20 plaintiff must allege that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
21 violated and that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.
22 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
23 A person deprives another of a constitutional right under § 1983 only if he “does an affirmative
24 act, participates in another’s affirmative acts,” or fails to perform a legally required duty which
25 “causes the deprivation of which” the plaintiff complains. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633
26 (9th Cir. 1988).
27 ///
28 ///
1 2. Excessive Force
2 The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishment, including
3 the use of excessive force. U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7
4 (1992). In the excessive force context, the United States Supreme Court has stated the core
5 judicial inquiry is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore
6 discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 501 U.S. at 4; see also,
7 Meredith v. Arizona, 523 F.2d 481, 483 (9th Cir. 1975).
8 3. Sexual Assault
9 To prevail on a sexual assault claim, a prisoner must prove that a staff member, acting
10 under color of law and without legitimate penological justification, touched him in a sexual
11 manner or otherwise engaged in sexual conduct for the staff member’s own sexual gratification,
12 or for the purpose of humiliating, degrading, or demeaning him. Bearchild v. Cobban, 947 F.3d
13 1130, 1144 (9th Cir. 2020). Courts must afford prison officials deference as legitimate
14 penological concerns often require invasive searches due to the unique security concerns in
15 prison. Id. at 1145. When an assault begins as a legitimate, albeit invasive, penological
16 procedure, the prisoner must show that the official’s “conduct exceeded the scope of what was
17 required to satisfy whatever institutional concern justified the initiation of the procedure.” Id.
18 Brief inappropriate touching is generally insufficient, particularly if the touching occurs during an
19 authorized search or penological procedure. Id.
20 4. Failure to Protect/Failure to Intervene
21 Prison officials have a duty to protect inmates from violence and physical abuse while in
22 custody. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040
23 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure to intervene can support an excessive force claim where the
24 bystander-officers had a realistic opportunity to intervene but failed to do so. Lolli v. County of
25 Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 418 (9th Cir. 2003); Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir.
26 1995). To establish a violation of this duty, the inmate must show that prison officials were
27 “deliberately indifferent” to a serious threat to the inmate’s safety. “Deliberate indifference is a
28 high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). A prison official
1 only acts with deliberate indifference when two requirements are met: (1) the objective
2 requirement that the deprivation be “objectively, sufficiently serious;” and (2) the subjective
3 requirement that the prison official had a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer, 511 U.S.
4 at 833–834. The objective requirement is “contextual and responsive to contemporary standards
5 of decency.” Id. at 834. The subjective requirement requires “more than an ordinary lack of due
6 care for the prisoner’s interests or safety.” Id. at 835. The requisite state of mind falls
7 “somewhere between the poles of negligence at one end and purpose or knowledge at the other.”
8 Id. at 836. Mere negligence on the part of prison staff is not sufficient to prove deliberate
9 indifference. Acting or failing to act with deliberate indifference is the equivalent of recklessly
10 disregarding a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate. Id. Prison officials can be held
11 liable for failing to intercede only if they had a realistic opportunity to do so. Ting v. United
12 States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1511–12 (9th Cir. 2000); Munoz v. Cal. Dept. of Corr., No. CV-18-10264
13 CJC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224706 at * 12–13 (C.D. Cal., October 6, 2020).
14 5. Admissibility of Felony Convictions
15 For the purpose of attacking the character for truthfulness of a witness, evidence that a
16 witness has been convicted of a crime that was punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year
17 shall be admitted subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1); see e.g.,
18 Untied States v. Murray, 751 F.2d 1528, 1533 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding that trial court properly
19 determined that probative value of seventeen-year-old conviction outweighed its prejudicial effect
20 when needed to resolve significant conflict between defendant and the government’s chief
21 witness).
22 The presumption under Rule 609(a) is that the term “evidence” encompasses the essential
23 facts of the conviction, including the statutory name of each offense, the date of conviction, and
24 the sentence imposed. United States v. Estrada, 430 F.3d 606, 615–16 (2d Cir. 2005); United
25 States v. Osazuwa, 564 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that impeachment with prior
26 convictions is generally limited to the crime charged, the date, and the disposition); see also, 4
27 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 609.20[2] at 609-57
28 (2d ed. 2005) (“When a prior conviction is admissible for impeachment, the impeaching party is
1 generally limited to establishing that bare facts of the conviction; usually the name of the offense,
2 the date of the conviction, and the sentence.”).
3 6. Punitive Damages
4 Punitive damages are available in a § 1983 action only when a defendant’s conduct is
5 shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or when it involves reckless or callous
6 indifference to the federally protected rights of others. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 51 (1983). A
7 finding that a defendant is not protected by qualified immunity does not automatically mean that
8 punitive damages should be awarded. Hernandez-Tirado v. Artau, 874 F.2d 866, 870 (1st Cir.
9 1989). Nor is it enough that a defendant may have acted in an objectively unreasonable manner;
10 his subjective state of mind must be assessed. Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 867 (10th
11 Cir. 1989). Where there is no evidence that a defendant acted with evil intent, there is no legal
12 right to punitive damages. Ward v. City of San Jose, 967 F.2d 280, 286 (9th Cir. 1991). The
13 plaintiff alleging a § 1983 claim has the burden of proving that punitive damages should be
14 awarded by a preponderance of the evidence. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir. 2005)
15 (citing Model Civ. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 7.5 (2004)).
16 ANY CAUSES OF ACTION OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOT EXPLICITLY
17 ASSERTED IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER UNDER POINTS OF LAW AT THE TIME IT
18 BECOMES FINAL ARE DISMISSED AND DEEMED WAIVED.
19 The parties may, but are not required to, file trial briefs addressing the points of law
20 implicated by the claims and defenses. Any trial brief shall be filed with the Court no later than
21 May 5, 2026, in accordance with Local Rule 285.
22 IX. ABANDONED ISSUES
23 The parties have not identified any abandoned issues.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1 X. WITNESSES
2 Plaintiff’s witnesses are listed in Attachment A. Defendants’ witnesses are listed in
3 Attachment B.
4 1. The Court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose,
5 including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:
6 a. The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the
7 purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at
8 the pretrial conference, or
9 b. The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering
10 party makes the showing required in paragraph 2, below.
11 2. Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial,
12 the party shall promptly inform the Court and opposing parties of the existence of
13 the unlisted witnesses so the Court may consider whether the witnesses shall be
14 permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not be permitted unless:
15 a. The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the
16 discovery cutoff;
17 b. The Court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of
18 the witness;
19 c. If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and
20 d. If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony
21 was provided to opposing parties.
22 XI. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND SUMMARIES
23 Plaintiff’s exhibits are listed in Attachment C. Defendants’ exhibits are listed in
24 Attachment D.
25 No exhibit shall be marked or entered into evidence under multiple exhibit numbers, and
26 the parties are hereby directed to meet and confer for the purpose of designating joint exhibits.
27 All exhibits must be pre-marked as discussed below. At trial, joint exhibits shall be marked for
28 identification as JX and listed numerically, e.g., JX-1, JX-2. To the extent the parties have any
1 objections to jointly marked exhibits, they must make such objections by the deadline set out
2 below. To the extent the parties also have separate exhibits, plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed
3 numerically (e.g., Ex. 1, Ex. 2) and defendants’ exhibits shall be listed alphabetically (e.g., Ex. A,
4 Ex. B). All exhibits must be pre-marked.
5 The parties shall serve one (1) copy of their trial exhibits on the other party by no later
6 than April 14, 2026. Any objections to exhibits shall be filed on or before April 28, 2026. The
7 final exhibits are due to the Court on May 5, 2026. In making any objection, the party is to set
8 forth the grounds for the objection. Any exhibit which is not objected to shall be marked and
9 received into evidence and will require no further foundation.
10 Defense counsel must prepare four (4) separate exhibit binders with the parties exhibits
11 for use by the Court at trial, with a side tab identifying each exhibit in accordance with the
12 specifications above. Each binder shall have an identification label on the front and spine. The
13 final exhibit binders, along with exhibit lists, shall be submitted to Courtroom Deputy Victoria
14 Gonzales no later than May 5, 2026.
15 The Court does not allow the use of undisclosed exhibits for any purpose, including
16 impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:
17 1. The Court will not admit exhibits other than those identified on the exhibit lists
18 referenced above unless:
19 a. The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the
20 purpose of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably
21 anticipated, or
22 b. The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the
23 proffering party makes the showing required in paragraph 2, below.
24 2. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly
25 inform the Court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the
26 court may consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received
27 unless the proffering party demonstrates:
28 a. The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;
1 b. The Court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their
2 existence; and
3 c. The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically
4 possible) to the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the
5 proffering party must show that it has made the exhibits reasonably
6 available for inspection by the opposing parties.
7 XII. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
8 The following is a list of discovery documents that the parties expect to offer at trial.
9 1. Plaintiff’s position: None specified.
10 2. Defendants’ position: Defendants’ pretrial statement does not separately identify a
11 list of discovery documents they intend to offer at trial, but defendants have
12 identified plaintiff’s deposition transcript as an exhibit to be introduced at trial.
13 NO DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS
14 SECTION OF THE FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER, MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE
15 PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE
16 MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule
17 281(b)(12).
18 Counsel must lodge a copy of any deposition transcript to be used at trial with the Clerk of
19 the Court no later than April 28, 2026.
20 XIII. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS
21 1. No further discovery is sought by either party.
22 2. Defendants intend to file motions in limine and a motion relating to restraints and
23 security needs for Plaintiff at trial, but no other pretrial motions.
24 XIV. STIPULATIONS
25 Defendants are willing to stipulate to the authenticity of Plaintiff’s unaltered records from
26 his central and medical files maintained by CDCR and any CDCR record generated and
27 maintained in the regular course of business, which may be used as exhibits at trial.
28 The parties shall meet and confer to see if any stipulations can be reached prior to trial.
1 XV. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS
2 None.
3 XVI. SETTLEMENT
4 No settlement conference is set at this time.
5 XVII. JOINT NEUTRAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE
6 Plaintiff appears to request an agreed statement containing an advisement that defendant
7 Hernandez has a history of being involved in six use of force incidents with Plaintiff since this
8 lawsuit commenced, and that Plaintiff is suing Hernandez and Baraona in two lawsuits.
9 Defendants do not believe an agreed statement is feasible.
10 The parties did not provide a joint statement of the case. The parties may file by April 28,
11 2026, a joint proposed Neutral Statement to be read to the jury. Otherwise, the Court may
12 propose the following Neutral Statement:
13 This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
Durrell Puckett alleges that defendants Baraona, Burnitzki, Leos, Hernandez,
14
and Diaz used excessive force against him, and that defendant Leos sexually
15 assaulted him, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff further
alleges that defendants A. Ruiz, E. Ruiz, Meier, Gutierrez, Allison (Cronister),
16 and Price failed to protect him from the excessive force and sexual assault, in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Defendants dispute plaintiff’s
17 claims.
18
19 XVIII. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
20 Plaintiff does not request a separate trial of any issues. Defendant requests that the trial be
21 bifurcated, with the issue of punitive damages being tried separately, if necessary, following
22 resolution of the liability phase.
23 There will be no separate trial of issues in this action, except that the Court will bifurcate
24 the trial with respect to the amount of punitive damages, if necessary. Should a jury find punitive
25 liability in the first phase of the trial, the trial will proceed to a second phase which will consist of
26 any evidence and argument with respect to the appropriate amount of punitive damages. The
27 parties may not present evidence regarding the amount of punitive damages until the second
28 phase of the trial.
1 XIX. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATIONS OF EXPERTS
2 None.
3 XX. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
4 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Defendants will seek
5 costs if successful, but not attorneys’ fees.
6 XXI. TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REDACTION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS
7 Plaintiff has not identified any information relating to a trial protective order or redaction
8 of trial exhibits.
9 Defendants do not anticipate that a trial protective order will be necessary.
10 Pursuant to the Court’s policy, at the end of the trial the Court will return all exhibits to
11 the proffering party to be retained during the pendency of any appeals.
12 XXII. MISCELLANEOUS
13 Defendants intend to file a motion requesting the use of special restraint procedures for
14 plaintiff at trial. Plaintiff intends to oppose the motion. The deadline for defendants to file a
15 motion regarding special restraint procedures for plaintiff at trial is February 20, 2026. Plaintiff
16 shall file any opposition to the motion by March 13, 2026. Defendants shall file any reply no
17 later than March 27, 2026. If the Court determines that it will hear oral argument on the motion,
18 the motion may be heard at the trial confirmation hearing on May 4, 2026.
19 XXIII. ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE
20 Jury trial is set for May 12, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom 6 before District Judge Kirk
21 E. Sherriff. Trial is anticipated to last 3–4 days. A trial confirmation hearing is set for May 4, at
22 3:00 p.m., in Courtroom 6.
23 Defense counsel shall contact Courtroom Deputy, Victoria Gonzales, at (559) 499-5676 or
24 vgonzales@caed.uscourts.gov for the Zoom dial-in information for all parties. Defense counsel
25 is required to arrange for Plaintiff’s participation by contacting the Litigation Coordinator
26 at the institution where Plaintiff is housed to provide the necessary dial-in information and
27 confirm whether the institution is able to produce Plaintiff for a video appearance at the
28 scheduled date and time.
1 XXIV. PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE, JURY INSTRUCTIONS, AND VERDICT FORM
2 1. Proposed Jury Voir Dire
3 i. The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire by May 5, 2026. Each
4 party will be limited to fifteen minutes of jury voir dire, unless they show
5 good cause for additional time.
6 2. Proposed Jury Instructions and Proposed Jury Verdict Form
7 i. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer, if possible, to generate a
8 joint set of jury instructions and a joint verdict form. The parties shall file
9 by April 14, 2026, any such joint set of instructions, identified as “Joint
10 Proposed Jury Instructions,” and any agreed upon verdict form, identified
11 as a “Joint Proposed Verdict Form.” If the parties cannot agree upon
12 certain specific jury instructions and/or the verdict form, defendants shall
13 file proposed jury instructions and a proposed verdict form as provided in
14 Local Rule 163 by April 14, 2026. Plaintiff is not required to file proposed
15 jury instructions or a proposed verdict form, but if he wishes to do so, he
16 must file them by April 14, 2026.
17 ii. The parties shall indicate on any proposed jury instructions or proposed
18 verdict form the party submitting the proposed instructions or verdict form
19 (i.e., joint, plaintiff’s, or defendants’).
20 iii. The parties shall also include on all proposed jury instructions the
21 following:
22 a. The number of the proposed instruction in sequence.
23 b. A brief title for the instruction describing the subject matter.
24 c. The complete text of the instruction.
25 d. The legal authority supporting the instruction.
26 e. The parties shall, by italics or underlining, designate any
27 modification from statutory or case authority, or any pattern or form
28 instruction, or any other source of pattern instructions.
1 f. The parties must specifically state the modification made to the
2 original form instruction and the legal authority supporting the
3 modification.
4 g. All blanks in form instructions should be completed and all
5 brackets removed.
6 iv. Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions shall be used where the subject of
7 the instruction is covered by the model instructions, including for all
8 standard instructions. State model jury instructions, such as BAJI or CACI
9 instructions, shall be used where applicable as to state law claims. The
10 parties shall designate, by italics or underlining, any proposed modification
11 of instructions from any pattern instruction, such as the Ninth Circuit
12 Model Civil Jury Instructions or other pattern instructions, or from
13 statutory or case authority. The parties must specifically state the
14 modification made to the standard instruction and the legal authority
15 supporting the proposed modification. All instructions shall be short,
16 concise, understandable, and neutral and accurate statements of the law.
17 Argumentative instructions will not be given and must not be submitted.
18 v. Defense counsel shall e-mail two copies of their proposed jury instructions
19 in Microsoft Word to vgonzales@caed.uscourts.gov no later than April 14,
20 2026. One set shall indicate the party proposing the instruction, with each
21 instruction numbered, and shall cite supporting authority. The other set
22 shall be an exact copy of the first set but shall be a “clean” copy that does
23 not contain the identification of the offering party, the instruction number,
24 supporting authority, or any reference to the Court’s disposition of the
25 proposed instruction.
26 vi. Defense counsel shall also provide a copy of their proposed verdict form(s)
27 in Microsoft Word to vgonzales@caed.uscourts.gov no later than April 14,
28 2026.
1 3. Objections to proposed jury instructions or proposed verdict form
2 i. The parties must file any objections to proposed jury instructions or to a
3 proposed verdict form by April 28, 2026. Each objection shall identify the
4 challenged instruction and shall provide a concise explanation of the basis
5 for the objection along with citation of authority. When applicable, the
6 objecting party shall submit an alternative proposed instruction on the issue
7 or identify which of his or her own proposed instructions covers the
8 subject.
9 XXV. TRIAL BRIEFS
10 The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file a trial brief. If any
11 party wishes to file a trial brief, they must do so by May 5, 2026. Any trial briefs shall contain
12 the information required by Local Rule 285.
13 XXVI. USE OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT IN COURTROOM
14 Court staff will assist plaintiff at trial in presenting exhibits using the Court’s projector
15 system, as needed.
16 Counsel wishing to receive an overview or tutorial of the Court’s electronic equipment
17 must contact the Courtroom Deputy Victoria Gonzales at (559) 499-5676 or
18 vgonzales@caed.uscourts.gov at least three (3) weeks before the start of trial to schedule a
19 tutorial session at a time convenient to the Court’s information technology staff. Counsel will not
20 be provided any training on the day of or during the trial. The electronic equipment and resources
21 available for this trial may differ from the equipment and resources available in other courtrooms
22 and may even differ from the equipment and resources available in this courtroom at another
23 time. It is the responsibility of counsel to familiarize themselves with the equipment and
24 resources available for use in this trial prior to the commencement of trial. If counsel is
25 unfamiliar with the equipment and resources available for use in this trial, that party may be
26 ordered to proceed without the aid of such equipment and resources and/or may be sanctioned for
27 any fees, costs, or expenses associated with any delay.
28
1 | XXVIII. OBJECTIONS TO TENTATIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
2 The parties may file objections, if any, to this Tentative Pretrial Order within 14 days of
3 | the entry of this order. The parties may file a response to the other party’s objections within 7
4 | days after the filing of the objections. If no objections are filed, this order will become final
5 | without further order of the Court.
6 The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
7 | Procedure and Local Rule 283 of this Court, this order shall control the subsequent course of this
8 | action and shall be modified “only to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e).
9 | XXVIII. COMPLIANCE WITH PRETRIAL ORDER
10 Strict compliance with this pretrial order and its requirements is mandatory. The Court
11 | will enforce the requirements of this pretrial order, and counsel and parties are subject to
12 | sanctions for failure to comply fully with this order and its requirements. The Court
| ADMONISHES the parties and counsel to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local
14 | Rules, and the Court’s orders. Failure to do so will make the parties and/or counsel subject to
15 | sanctions.
16
17 | [TIS SO ORDERED. _
18 Dated: _ January 26, 2026 4h | |
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT □□□□□
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
1 ATTACHMENT A: Plaintiff’s Witnesses
2 1. Durrell Anthony Puckett
3 2. Arlington Heyligar, CDCR No. G-41610
4 3. Nirran Wells, CDCR No. AS-7049
5 4. David Brinson, CDCR No. J-09563
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 ATTACHMENT B: Defendants’ Witnesses
2 1. Durrell Puckett, Plaintiff
3 2. A. Baraona, Defendant
4 3. H. Hernandez, Defendant
5 4. A. Ruiz, Defendant
6 5. E. Ruiz, Defendant
7 6. R. Burnitzki, Defendant
8 7. R. Leos, Defendant
9 8. E. Diaz, Defendant
10 9. G. Meier, Defendant
11 10. R. Gutierrez, Defendant
12 11. K. Allison, Defendant
13 12. T. Price, Defendant
14 13. J. Cruz
15 14. R. Martinez
16 15. R. Roberts
17 16. T. Sanders
18 17. M. Navarro
19 18. J. Holland
20 19. C. Bencito
21 20. Custodian of Records for Plaintiff’s central file and medical records
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 ATTACHMENT C: Plaintiff’s Exhibits
2 Ex. Description
3 1. Arlington Heyligar Declaration (January 20, 2021)
4 2. Nirran Wells Declaration (October 23, 2023)
5 3. David Brinson Declaration (October 26, 2025)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 ATTACHMENT D: Defendants’ Exhibits
2 Ex. Description
3 A. Incident Report 17371
4 B. Rules Violation Report 7057337
5 C. Inmate Grievance 83455
6 D. Medical Reports of Injury or Unusual Occurrence for Plaintiff, dated January 20, 2021
7 E. Photographs of California State Prison, Corcoran, Building 3A03
8 F. Video interviews of Plaintiff dated January 20, 2021, and January 27, 2021
9 G. Staff Sign-in Sheets for January 20, 2021
10 H. Spit mask restraining device
11 I. Deposition transcript of Plaintiff dated April 25, 2023
12 J. Complaint dated September 24, 2021
13 K. First Amended Complaint dated January 24, 2022
14 L. Second Amended Complaint dated March 20, 2024
15 Abstracts of Judgment dated January 24, 2008, August 21, 2018, July 13, 2019,
M. September 13, 2019
16 Excerpts of Plaintiff’s medical and mental health records for impeachment purposes
N. depending on Plaintiff’s testimony in trial
17
Excerpts of Plaintiff’s disciplinary and rules violation report history for impeachment
18 O. purposes depending on Plaintiff’s testimony in trial
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28