Ramsey v. Johnson

Background

Ravon Lovowe Ramsey, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged that, in May 2017, he told the officers that he feared being attacked by other inmates because an inmate had attacked him at that prison in 2013. The officers allegedly housed him there anyway after noting that his former attacker was no longer present and disregarding his concern that other inmates might attack him. On October 23, 2019, two inmates assaulted and seriously injured Ramsey.

Screening and statute of limitations

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against government entities or officials and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court explained that the filing deadline for Ramsey’s claims was generally two years. If he had been continuously incarcerated, California law could add up to two years of tolling, giving him a maximum of four years from when he learned of the injury. The court also discussed possible equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, which can sometimes extend a filing deadline in limited circumstances.

The court concluded that Ramsey’s claims accrued in May 2017. It reasoned that the alleged legal injury was placing him in danger, not only the later physical assault, because a prisoner need not wait until an assault occurs to assert that officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious safety risk. Ramsey filed this action in January 2025, more than seven and a half years after the alleged danger began. The complaint did not allege facts supporting equitable tolling or another basis for treating the claims as timely.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Ramsey was ordered to file an amended complaint by March 5, 2025, using the case caption and civil case number specified in the order and placing the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The amended complaint had to include all claims he wished to pursue because it would replace the original complaint. The court warned that failing to amend as required could result in dismissal of the case, and that failing to comply with court orders could also lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.