Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00328/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00328-5/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 DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

REFERRING THE PENDING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

BACK TO THE ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE

(Doc. No. 12)

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 July 18, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, in which 

plaintiff requests that the court order defendants “to provide him mental health treatment and 

medical care.” (Doc. No. 11.) But in that motion, plaintiff did not specify what mental health 

treatment or medical care he seeks from defendants. Accordingly, on October 24, 2022, the 

assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s 

pending motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied because the motion is vague and 

plaintiff “does not elaborate as to what form such treatment should take.” (Doc. No. 12 at 1.) 

Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 18 Filed 01/25/23 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

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) On November 7, 

2022, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 14.)

In his objections, plaintiff argues that his requested relief is not vague and is supported by 

the allegations in his first amended complaint that defendant has denied him “mental health 

care/service/treatment [for] his serious mental health disorder [which is] require[d] to prevent him 

from committing suicide, or engaging in self injurious behavior.” (Id. at 2–3.) The undersigned 

has reviewed the first amended complaint and plaintiff’s pending motion for injunctive relief and 

agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the relief requested therein is vague. However, 

in his objections, plaintiff now provides some elaboration and description of the care he is 

allegedly being denied and that he requests the court order defendants to provide him, including: 

“psychotherapy, psychological analytical therapy, psychological group therapy, and life skill 

therapy that teach[es] trauma subjects skills, and techniques on how to survive after trauma.” (Id.

at 6.) According to plaintiff, defendants denied plaintiff this therapy even though “[t]his type of 

therapy is the type of therapy plaintiff was assured he would receive in August 2022” based on a 

recommendation from his Interdisciplinary Treatment Team. (Id.) Thus, the undersigned finds it 

appropriate to refer plaintiff’s motion back to the assigned magistrate judge for renewed 

consideration in light of plaintiff’s clarification of the relief he is requesting in his pending 

motion for a preliminary injunction.

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, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the undersigned declines at this time to adopt the pending findings and 

recommendations, without evaluating or reaching any determination as to the merits of plaintiff’s 

underlying motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Instead, out of an abundance of caution, the 

pending motion will be referred back to the magistrate judge for further consideration and for 

reissuance of findings and recommendations. 

Accordingly,

1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued on July 18, 

2022 (Doc. No. 12);

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 18 Filed 01/25/23 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 motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. No. 11) is referred back 

to the magistrate judge for the issuance of findings and recommendations in light 

of the plaintiff’s clarification as to the relief he seeks; and 

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

proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00328-CKD Document 18 Filed 01/25/23 Page 3 of 3