Salmen

Salmen v. Terronez

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJune 18, 20243:23-cv-02054California1,066 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

22 Pro se Plaintiff Justin Salmen is incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility 23 (“RJD”). Salmen’s complaint alleges RJD correctional officer Terronez violated his civil 24 rights by “spreading false rumors to the inmates on Alpha Yard” by claiming Salmen is a 25 “snitch,” “child molester,” and “homosexual.” Dkt. No. 7 at 3. Another inmate then 26 “knocked [Salmen] unconscious by a strike to [his] face” causing “head trauma, laceration, 27 bleeding and bruising to the upper left of [his] face/head.” Id. 28 The Court screened Salmen’s complaint and found it stated a plausible claim against Terronez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm from another inmate. Dkt. No. 10 at 5.1 Terronez’s Motion seeks dismissal of Salmen’s “official capacity” claim because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Dkt. No. 15.2 Salmen did not file a response. II. LEGAL STANDARD A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it…

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.