Marshall

(PC) Springfield v. Marshall

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 14, 20192:18-cv-01073California1,052 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CIRON SPRINGFIELD, No. 2:18-cv-1073-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

G. MARSHALL, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 24, 2019, the court determined that, for screening purposes, plaintiff had stated potentially cognizable First Amendment claims for retaliation against defendants Marshall, Neel, Craig, Polich, and Moran. ECF No. 5. Service has been directed for these defendants (ECF No. 9), but they have yet to respond to the complaint. Pending before the court, however, is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. ECF No. 11. By order of the court, the Office of the Attorney General has entered a special appearance on behalf the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and filed a response to the motion. ECF No. 14. For the reasons stated hereafter, it must be…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.