Sauls

INTRODUCTION

16 Plaintiff David L. Sauls alleges in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that his jailors at 17 CTF-Soledad endangered him in violation of the Eighth Amendment by labelling him a 18 snitch. Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on grounds that Sauls has failed 19 to state a claim for relief.1 20 Sauls has stated sufficient facts to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. 21 According to his allegations, which must be assumed as true for the purposes of this Order, 22 defendants at CTF-Soledad and SATF labelled him a snitch in front of other prisoners and 23 encouraged prisoners to threaten and attack him. He was ultimately threatened by 24 prisoners at SATF. Though the facts supporting the final element occurred outside the 25 26 1 Defendants’ first motion to dismiss is moot because they filed a second one while the first was pending. It is the second motion that is the subject of this Order. (Dkt. Nos. 24 Northern District, I find them sufficiently connected to the initiating acts at CTF-Soledad to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Accordingly, defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion is DENIED. On or before July 1, 2025,…