Sarinana

Sarinana v. Soto

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 11, 20213:19-cv-00014California1,934 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

15 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 16 1983 alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. Certain claims were dismissed 17 upon initial review. Defendants D. Osborn and Botello filed a motion for judgment on the 18 pleadings and for summary judgment, which was granted. Defendant S. Soto has filed a motion 19 to dismiss the remaining claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 20 Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Soto filed a reply brief. For the reasons discussed below, 21 defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file 22 an opposition is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

24 The following facts are set forth in the complaint and in the medical records attached 25 thereto (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1): 26 At about 3:00 p.m. on March 31, 2018, plaintiff tried to enter his housing unit at the 27 California Training Facility (“CTF”), but the door was locked. He looked through a window 28 where several officers were, including defendant Soto. Soto “shoved his hand against the window,” causing it to break, and a “tiny” piece of glass…

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.