Herrera-Ramos v. Thich
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-01366
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Herrera-Ramos v. Thich, Judge Freeman screened the prisoner’s civil-rights complaint, dismissed other claims without prejudice, and allowed five claims to proceed.
Jose Herrera-Ramos may continue litigating five identified claims against Paul Estrada, Erik Beam, John Thich, Y. De Leon, Aldama, De La Torre, and D. Zava. His other claims were dismissed without prejudice, and defendants against whom no claims remained were terminated from the case.
What happened
In Herrera-Ramos v. Thich, Jose Herrera-Ramos, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued prison officials under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously found some claims sufficient and others deficient, and Herrera-Ramos asked to proceed with the sufficient claims while dismissing the deficient claims without prejudice.
The court allowed five claims to proceed: excessive-force claims concerning incidents in December 2022, April 2024, and August 2024; a retaliation claim against Erik Beam and John Thich; and a failure-to-protect claim concerning a June 2024 inmate attack. The court dismissed all other claims without prejudice, terminated defendants against whom no claims remained, ordered service on seven defendants, and directed defendants to file a summary-judgment or other case-ending motion.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on August 25, 2025. The order screened the complaint and set the case’s next steps; it did not decide whether the surviving allegations were true or whether Herrera-Ramos would ultimately win.
The detailed version
- Herrera-Ramos v. Thich · No. 5:25-cv-01366
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 25, 2025
Background
Jose Herrera-Ramos, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional staff and the warden at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he had previously been confined. The court had screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed deficient claims with permission to amend. The court warned that if he did not amend, the deficient claims would be dismissed and the claims found legally sufficient would proceed.
Herrera-Ramos responded that he wanted to proceed with the legally sufficient claims and wanted the deficient claims dismissed without prejudice.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
The order states that the case would proceed on these claims:
- An excessive-force claim against Paul Estrada, Erik Beam, John Thich, and Y. De Leon concerning the December 27, 2022 incident.
- A retaliation claim against Erik Beam and John Thich.
- An excessive-force claim against Paul Estrada, Aldama, and John Thich concerning an April 2024 incident.
- A failure-to-protect claim against John Thich and De La Torre concerning an inmate attack in June
- 5. An excessive-force claim against John Thich and D. Zava following an allegedly false 1030 report in August 2024.
For the December 2022 allegations, the court found sufficient allegations of excessive force and retaliation. For the June 2024 allegations, the court found sufficient allegations for a failure-to-protect claim. The excerpted opinion states that the allegations also supported another excessive-force claim, and the conclusion identifies that claim as arising from April 2024 and identifies the August 2024 claim as involving the allegedly false 1030 report.
Dismissal and Service
All other claims were dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate defendants against whom no claims remained. The court ordered service on Paul Estrada, Erik Beam, John Thich, Y. De Leon, Aldama, De La Torre, and D. Zava through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process, with service by the United States Marshals Service for defendants who did not waive service.
Next Steps Ordered by the Court
The defendants were ordered to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found legally sufficient no later than 91 days after the order was filed. A dispositive motion is a motion that could resolve a claim or the case without a trial. If defendants filed a summary-judgment motion, it had to comply with Rule 56 and be supported by factual evidence. Herrera-Ramos’s opposition was due 28 days after the motion, and defendants’ reply was due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one.
The order also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Herrera-Ramos to serve copies of his communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court deadlines.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the case proceed on the five identified claims, dismissed all other claims without prejudice, ordered service on the listed defendants, and set deadlines for dispositive motions and related filings. The order did not resolve the merits of the surviving claims.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.