Herrera-Ramos v. CDCR
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-01400
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Herrera-Ramos v. CDCR, Judge Freeman dismissed other claims without prejudice, allowed two claims to proceed, and granted subpoenas.
Jose Herrera-Ramos’s case continues on his failure-to-protect and deliberate-indifference-to-serious-medical-needs claims against Officer Orosco and unidentified officers. Other claims were dismissed without prejudice, Officer Orosco was subject to service, and the defendants must respond through the deadlines set by the court.
What happened
In Herrera-Ramos v. CDCR, Jose Herrera-Ramos, a state prisoner representing himself, sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Officer Orosco, unidentified officers, and a warden under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously found some claims adequate and others deficient.
The court allowed claims to proceed alleging that Officer Orosco and unidentified officers failed to protect Herrera-Ramos from an assault during prisoner transportation and denied him medical care afterward. The court dismissed all other claims without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar a later filing of those claims, and removed the defendants against whom no claims remained.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered service on Officer Orosco, allowed discovery to help identify the unidentified officers, required Herrera-Ramos to seek their substitution by name, and directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another case-ending motion. Judge Freeman also granted Herrera-Ramos’s motion for subpoenas and ordered blank subpoena forms provided.
The detailed version
- Herrera-Ramos v. CDCR · No. 5:25-cv-01400
- Beth Freeman
- July 31, 2025
Background
Jose Herrera-Ramos, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Officer Orosco, unidentified officers, and Warden J. Lewis. The court had screened the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and had dismissed deficient claims with permission to amend. Herrera-Ramos responded that he wanted to proceed with the claims the court had found adequate and wanted the deficient claims dismissed without prejudice.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
The court allowed two categories of claims to proceed against Officer Orosco and unidentified officers:
1. Failure to protect: Herrera-Ramos alleged that he warned transportation officers that Sureño gang members had threatened to kill him, but the officers mocked him, placed him near those inmates during transportation, watched while he was beaten unconscious, and denied him medical attention afterward. The court found these allegations sufficient to state a failure-to-protect claim under the Eighth Amendment.
2. Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs: Herrera-Ramos alleged that, after the assault, he had serious injuries and requested medical care, water, and pain medication, but transportation officers refused or laughed at his requests. The court found these allegations sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
The court dismissed all other claims without prejudice and directed the Clerk to terminate defendants against whom no claims remained.
Service, Discovery, and Deadlines
The court ordered service of the action on Correctional Officer Orosco through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. It allowed discovery so Herrera-Ramos could try to learn the names of the unidentified officers and required him to file a motion substituting their proper names within 56 days after the order was filed. The court stated that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the claims against those unidentified officers for failure to state a claim for relief.
The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion—one that could resolve the claims—within 91 days after the order was filed. The order also set deadlines for Herrera-Ramos’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, and stated that no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.
Subpoenas and Disposition
The court granted Herrera-Ramos’s motion for subpoenas. It explained that he could subpoena the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a non-party, but that he needed to complete a proper subpoena form and renew his request for the Clerk and the United States Marshals Service to serve it. The Clerk was ordered to provide two blank subpoena forms.
This was a screening and case-management order rather than a final decision on whether Herrera-Ramos would ultimately win the claims allowed to proceed. The order granted the subpoena motion, dismissed all other claims without prejudice, and allowed the specified claims to continue.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.