Moreno

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, Case No. 2:22-cv-00650-WBS-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

v. ECF No. 41 D. MORENO, et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants. THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT BE DENIED

16 ECF No. 37 18 Plaintiff brought this action on April 12, 2022, and, on January 23, 2023, I found that the second amended complaint stated a viable Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against defendants Moreno, Haynes, Smith, and Williams. ECF No. 15. Then, after service was accomplished and the case was scheduled, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint, ECF No. 37, seeking to add a First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Haynes (and possibly against defendants Moreno, Smith, and two unidentified “Doe” officers). ECF No. 38 at 4. Defendants have opposed amendment, ECF No. 39, and plaintiff has filed a reply, ECF No. 40. …