Ciron B. Springfield v. S. Mintz et al, No. 2:2015cv08221 - Document 74 (C.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Dean D. Pregerson for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 53 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 38 . IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. The Eighth Amendment claims related to denial of single cell status are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to the Eighth Amendment claim based on failure to refer Plaintiff for new medication to a psychiatrist without prejudice to Defendants' ability to file a motion to dismiss this claim or a motion for summary judgment. (see document for further details) (hr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ciron B. Springfield v. S. Mintz et al Doc. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 v. S. MINTZ, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV 15-8221 DDP (AGR) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the complaint, records on 17 file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 18 (“Report”) and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of 19 those portions of the Report to which Defendants have objected. The Court accepts 20 the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 21 Defendants object to the recommendation that Defendants’ motion to dismiss 22 be denied as to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim based on failure to refer him 23 for new medication or mental health treatment. The Report noted that Defendants’ 24 motion to dismiss did not address that claim. (Report at 10.) Defendants argue that 25 Plaintiff does not make such a claim, and that his sole claim is based on the failure to 26 recommend single cell status. A pro se complaint is liberally construed. Erickson v. 27 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 28 contains specific complaints about Plaintiff’s treatment with the drug Geodon. (FAC at 4-5 & Exhibit E.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his “right to be free from Dockets.Justia.com 1 cruel and unusual punishment by, among other things, “allow[ing] the Plaintiff mental 2 health to regress by his failure to refer the Plaintiff for new medication to a 3 psychiatrist, or single-cell status which aided the Plaintiff mental decompensating” 4 and “purposely ignor[ing] the Plaintiff request for serious mental health care.” (FAC 5 at 13, 15, 16.)1 The use of the word “or” indicates the disjunctive. See Acosta v. City 6 of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800, 815 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that function of “or” is to 7 denote an alternative). The FAC requests relief both as to single cell status and as to 8 “access to the full array of services CDC provide[s] under Mental Health Care.” (Id. 9 at 17.) The Report reasonably construed the FAC to include an Eighth Amendment 10 claim based on failure to refer Plaintiff for new medication to a psychiatrist. 11 Defendants further object that Plaintiff fails to state a claim based on failure to 12 refer him for new medication and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 13 Defendants’ motion to dismiss did not raise arguments and Plaintiff has not been 14 given an opportunity to respond. The court will not address new arguments for 15 dismissal raised for the first time in objections. 16 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART 17 and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. The Eighth Amendment claims 18 related to denial of single cell status are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants’ 19 motion to dismiss is denied as to the Eighth Amendment claim based on failure to 20 refer Plaintiff for new medication to a psychiatrist without prejudice to Defendants’ 21 im orr a motion forr ssummary ummaryy judgme ability to file a motion to dismiss this claim judgment. 22 23 DATED: 1-22-19 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 1 Page citations are to the page numbers assigned by CM/ECF in the header. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
