Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00328/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00328-11/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 DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. Nos. 30, 31, 33)

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 May 11, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and on May 

15, 2023, plaintiff filed an amended motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. Nos. 30, 31.) 

On May 19, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied because 

plaintiff has not clearly articulated the relief he seeks, e.g., “which specific conditions this court 

should order changed,” and he does not state a claim for injunctive relief in his operative second 

amended complaint. (Doc. No. 33.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on 

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

/////

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 37 Filed 06/16/23 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

days after service. (Id. at 2.) On June 5, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings 

and recommendations. (Doc. No. 36.)

In his objections, plaintiff explains that he seeks a court order directing the defendants to 

provide him with the Department of State Hospital (“DSH”) structured four module treatment 

program, which includes treatment readiness, self-regulation, treatment integration and 

community preparation, and community integration. (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff also states that he 

seeks a court order directing the defendants to transfer him to a DSH intermediate care facility. 

(Id. at 4.) Although plaintiff has now provided some specificity as to the relief he seeks, 

plaintiff’s objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 

recommendations. As the magistrate judge and the undersigned have previously explained to 

plaintiff, his “allegations of past wrongdoings that purportedly occurred in 2019,” which form the 

basis of this lawsuit, “cannot provide a basis for current injunctive relief.” (See Doc. No. 23 at 1.) 

Indeed, in the pending findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge explained that “[i]f 

plaintiff wishes to pursue injunctive relief with respect to his current conditions of confinement, 

he should initiate a separate lawsuit.” (Doc. No. 33 at 2.) For these reasons, the undersigned will 

adopt the findings and recommendations and deny plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive 

relief.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported 

by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 19, 2023 (Doc. No. 33) are 

adopted in full;

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 37 Filed 06/16/23 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

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Doc. No. 30, 31) are denied; and

3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 37 Filed 06/16/23 Page 3 of 3