Slamen

Slamen v. Castenada

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 20223:22-cv-02589California1,891 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

15 Plaintiff Mark Slamen alleges Salinas Valley Prison correctional officers violated 16 his First and Eighth Amendment rights. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these 17 allegations is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 18 Slamen has stated cognizable First and Eighth Amendment claims regarding the 19 October 2020 incident. His claims regarding the November 2020 incidents are 20 DISMISSED without prejudice to Slamen raising them in a separate civil rights action. 21 The Court directs defendants to file in response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or a 22 notice regarding such motion, on or before January 23, 2023.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

24 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 25 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 26 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 27 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),…

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.