Ramirez v. Pfeiffer

Background

Narciso Ramirez, identified as a state inmate confined at Kern Valley State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the Eastern District of California screened his second amended complaint and transferred the case because it determined that district was no longer the proper venue, the case was reassigned to Judge Beth Labson Freeman in the Northern District of California for initial screening.

Claims and screening

Ramirez alleged that on May 11, 2019, G. Hernandez, T. Saetevrn, and J. Sivongsa stomped, punched, and kicked him without reason while he was handcuffed, wearing leg restraints, and lying down at Salinas Valley State Prison. He also alleged that N. Gounden and additional defendants deliberately denied him medical attention. He asserted violations of the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and sought damages and injunctive relief.

The court explained that screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court liberally construed Ramirez’s self-represented allegations and found a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Hernandez, Saetevrn, and Sivongsa.

The court found the deliberate-indifference medical-care claim insufficient because Ramirez did not provide facts identifying his serious medical needs or explaining what Gounden knew and how Gounden responded. The court also found no factual allegations connecting the additional defendants, including people working at other prison facilities, to the May 11, 2019 incident. The court granted leave to amend those allegations if Ramirez could do so in good faith. It also allowed him to attempt to provide sufficient facts supporting claims under the First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments.

Motion for appointed counsel and prior injunction request

Ramirez moved for appointment of counsel and repeated requests for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. He cited difficulty accessing the law library, alleged mail tampering, and mental-health challenges. The court stated that appointment of counsel in a civil case is discretionary and reserved for exceptional circumstances. It denied the motion; in its discussion, the court described the denial as without prejudice and stated that it could appoint counsel later if circumstances warranted. The court also stated that it had already denied Ramirez’s earlier motion for a preliminary injunction and that he presented no new compelling reason to reconsider that decision.

Order

The court ordered that the second amended complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Ramirez was given 28 days from filing of the order to submit a third amended complaint on the court’s form, including the required caption and case number. Alternatively, he could file notice electing to proceed on the cognizable excessive-force claims and defendants from the second amended complaint. If he failed to respond as ordered, the case would proceed solely on the excessive-force claim, and the other claims and defendants would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court’s conclusion separately states that the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

The opinion contains a case-number inconsistency: its header identifies the matter as Case No. 24-cv-01714 BLF (PR), while the amendment instructions refer to Case No. C 24-cv-01417 BLF (PR).