Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00328/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00328-12/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

CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v. 

P. HUDSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-00328-DAD-CKD (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Doc. No. 26) 

Plaintiff Ciron B. Springfield is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On March 30, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint (“SAC”) filed in this action and found that plaintiff had stated potentially cognizable 

Eighth Amendment claims against defendants P. Hudson, Sanh Nguyen, and J. Smolinger “for 

subjecting plaintiff to harmful conditions of confinement on the day plaintiff attempted suicide 

(November 7, 2019),” but that plaintiff had failed to state any other cognizable claims.1

 (Doc. 

No. 24.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a third amended complaint or notify the court of his 

1

 Plaintiff had also named defendants T. McGinty, C. Essex, and A. Dillon in his original and 

first amended complaints, but he did not name them in the operative SAC. (Compare Doc. Nos. 

1, 10 with Doc. No. 16.) Thus, the court will dismiss those defendants and direct the Clerk of the 

Court to update the docket to reflect that they have been terminated from this action. 

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 50 Filed 11/01/23 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

willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the screening order within 

twenty-one (21) days after service of the screening order. (Id. at 4–5.) On April 17, 2023, 

plaintiff notified the court that he was willing to proceed only on the claims identified by the 

magistrate judge in the screening order as cognizable. (Doc. No. 25.)

Consequently, on April 24, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s claims found to be 

cognizable in the screening order and that all other claims brought by plaintiff in his complaint be 

dismissed. (Doc. No. 26.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

service. (Id. at 1–2.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has 

now passed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2023 (Doc. No. 26) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against 

defendants P. Hudson, Sanh Nguyen, and J. Smolinger for allegedly subjecting 

plaintiff to harmful conditions of confinement on the day plaintiff attempted 

suicide (November 7, 2019);

3. All other claims brought by plaintiff in this action are dismissed; 

4. Defendants T. McGinty, C. Essex, and A. Dillon are dismissed from this action

because plaintiff did not name them as defendants in the operative second 

amended complaint; 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect the termination of 

the following defendants from this action: T. McGinty, C. Essex, and A. Dillon; 

and

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 50 Filed 11/01/23 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

6. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 50 Filed 11/01/23 Page 3 of 3