Herrera-Ramos v. Thich
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-01366
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Herrera-Ramos v. Thich, Judge Freeman screened the civil-rights case, dismissing some claims and allowing amendment of others.
Jose Herrera-Ramos and the correctional defendants named in the order. Three claims were dismissed with prejudice, two retaliation claims were dismissed with leave to amend, and the order identified five claims as potentially proceeding, although it is inconsistent about one retaliation claim.
What happened
Herrera-Ramos v. Thich concerns Jose Herrera-Ramos’s self-represented civil-rights lawsuit under federal law against correctional staff and a warden at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged assaults, threats, retaliation, failure to protect him from inmate attacks, and related misconduct.
The court dismissed with prejudice claims based on April 2024 threats and intimidation, a prison official’s failure to process a grievance, and retaliation based on a June 2024 inmate attack. It dismissed with leave to amend retaliation claims concerning the December 2022 incident and a false report in August 2024. The court found other excessive-force and failure-to-protect claims sufficient to proceed.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman gave Herrera-Ramos 28 days to file an amended complaint and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal with prejudice of the deficient claims. The order appears internally inconsistent because it both dismisses the December 2022 retaliation claim with leave to amend and lists a retaliation claim against Beam and Thich among the claims that will proceed.
The detailed version
- Herrera-Ramos v. Thich · No. 5:25-cv-01366
- Beth Freeman
- July 15, 2025
Background
Jose Herrera-Ramos, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional staff and the warden at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court was conducting the required preliminary screening of the complaint. A screening court must identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court noted that Herrera-Ramos’s pleadings had to be read liberally because he was representing himself. His request to proceed without paying the filing fee was to be addressed separately.
Claims and Screening Rulings
Herrera-Ramos described four groups of claims:
1. December 2022 incident: He alleged that correctional officers punched, kicked, and stepped on him, causing injuries, and that Beam and Thich later harassed and threatened him when he tried to report the incident. The court found sufficient allegations for an excessive-force claim against Estrada, Beam, Thich, and De Leon. The court also stated in its discussion that the retaliation allegations were sufficient, but the conclusion ordered the December 27, 2022 retaliation claim dismissed with leave to amend.
2. April 2024 incident: He alleged that Estrada and Aldama punched him and that Thich kicked him and threatened him after his girlfriend complained about an alleged search. The court found sufficient allegations for an excessive-force claim against Estrada, Aldama, and Thich. It dismissed with prejudice the separate claim based on threats and intimidation by Thich and De Leon because threats alone did not state a claim under § 1983.
3. June 2024 inmate attack: He alleged that Thich and De La Torre allowed inmates to attack him. The court found that he stated a failure-to-protect claim against Thich and De La Torre. It dismissed with prejudice his retaliation claim based on that attack because the allegations did not satisfy all required elements. It also dismissed with prejudice the claim against Galdillo for failing to process a grievance, explaining that prisoners do not have a separate constitutional right to a particular grievance process.
4. August and September 2024 events: He alleged continuing threats and assaults, including that Thich and Zava falsified a report accusing him of attempting to introduce a controlled substance and later kicked him during an escort. The court found sufficient allegations for an excessive-force claim against Thich and Zava. It dismissed the related retaliation claim with leave to amend because the allegations did not show that the conduct chilled Herrera-Ramos’s exercise of his First Amendment rights.
Order
The court ordered Herrera-Ramos to file an amended complaint within 28 days, using the required case caption and marking it as a first amended complaint. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case. The court warned that failure to file the amended complaint on time would result in dismissal with prejudice of the deficient claims.
The conclusion lists five claims that the case would proceed on: excessive force concerning the December 2022 incident; retaliation against Beam and Thich; excessive force concerning the April 2024 incident; failure to protect concerning the June 2024 attack; and excessive force concerning the August 2024 events. However, that list conflicts with the same conclusion’s statement that the December 2022 retaliation claim was dismissed with leave to amend. The opinion therefore does not clearly state the final status of that retaliation claim.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.