(PC) Springfield v. Hudson

Opinion

CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, No. 2:22-cv-0328 DAD CKD P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS P. HUDSON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: P. Hudson, S. Nguyen, and J. Smolinger. On March 30, 2023, the court screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff was given two options: (1) proceed on a claim against defendants arising under the Eighth Amendment for subjecting plaintiff to harmful conditions of confinement on the day plaintiff attempted suicide (November 7, 2019); or (2) request permission to file a third amended complaint so that plaintiff could attempt to cure deficiencies in the second amended complaint. Plaintiff has elected to proceed on the claim described above. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, for the reasons stated in the court’s March 30, 2023, order, all claims other than a claim arising under the under the Eighth ///// Amendment for subjecting plaintiff to harmful conditions of confinement on the day plaintiff attempted suicide (November 7, 2019) be dismissed. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: April 24, 2023 / aa LaF / ip a i CAROLYN K DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1S | 4 spri0328 firs