Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01493/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01493-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Lebron Springs
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC LEBRON SPRINGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01493-CDB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS

14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Eric Lebron Springs is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2024, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 23). This Court 

found Plaintiff’s operative, second amended complaint plausibly alleges claims under the Federal 

Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for California state law torts of assault and battery but fails to allege 

any other claims. Id. at 8-10. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to do one of the following within 

30 days of the date of service of the order: (1) notify the Court in writing that he did not wish to 

file a third amended complaint and that he was willing to proceed only on the cognizable claims, 

with the remaining claims to be dismissed; or (2) file a third amended complaint curing the 

deficiencies identified by the Court in the First Screening Order. Id. at 10-11. 

In a December 9, 2024 filing, dated and signed November 28, 2024, Plaintiff states that he 

Case 1:23-cv-01493-JLT-CDB Document 26 Filed 12/13/24 Page 1 of 2
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

“wishes to place the court on notice that he does not wish to amend his complaint, and that [he] 

wish[es] to stand on [his] complaint.” Id. 

II. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge.

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s First Screening Order (Doc. 23), the Court 

RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff’s FTCA claims for assault and battery under 

California state tort law; 

2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. 22) be 

DISMISSED.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 

leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 

Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 

exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may 

be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 

may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 

Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01493-JLT-CDB Document 26 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 2