Opinion
2:22-cv-00328-DAD-CKD (PC)
01-24-2023
CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, Plaintiff, v. P. HUDSON, et al., Defendants.
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 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);
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.