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 dismissed deficient claims without prejudice, kept five claims, and ordered service and later dispositive motions.
Jose Herrera-Ramos may continue litigating the five claims the court found cognizable, while all other claims were dismissed without prejudice. Paul Estrada, Erik Beam, John Thich, Y. De Leon, Aldama, De La Torre, and D. Zaun were identified for service; other defendants were terminated because no claims remained against them.
What happened
Herrera-Ramos v. Thich concerns Jose Herrera-Ramos’s pro se civil-rights lawsuit against correctional staff and a warden at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged retaliation, excessive force, and failure to protect him from inmate attacks.
The court screened the prisoner’s complaint and found five claims legally sufficient to proceed: excessive force, retaliation, and failure to protect claims arising from incidents in 2022 and 2024. Herrera-Ramos asked to proceed on those claims and to dismiss the deficient claims without prejudice.
Judge Beth Freeman dismissed all other claims without prejudice, directed service on seven defendants, and ordered the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed.
The detailed version
- Herrera-Ramos v. Thich · No. 5:25-cv-01366
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Jose Herrera-Ramos, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional staff and the warden at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had previously screened his complaint, dismissed deficient claims with leave to amend, and advised that the deficient claims would be dismissed if he chose to proceed only on the claims the court found legally sufficient.
Herrera-Ramos responded that he wanted to proceed on the cognizable claims and wanted the deficient claims dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar him from bringing those claims again. The opinion describes allegations of threats, retaliation, physical assaults, lack of medical attention, missed meals, and failures to protect him from inmate attacks.
Screening and claims allowed to proceed
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court screened the prisoner’s complaint. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant, while construing a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.
The order states that the case would proceed on these five cognizable claims:
- An excessive-force claim against Paul Estrada, Erik Beam, John Thich, and Y. De Leon based on the December 27, 2022 incident.
- A retaliation claim against Erik Beam and John Thich.
- An excessive-force claim against Estrada, Aldama, and Thich based on an April 2024 incident.
- A failure-to-protect claim against Thich and De La Torre based on an inmate attack in June
- 5. An excessive-force claim against Thich and Zaun following an alleged false “1030” report in August 2024.
The court said the allegations were sufficient at the screening stage to state excessive-force, retaliation, and failure-to-protect claims. The order did not decide whether the alleged events actually occurred or whether Herrera-Ramos would ultimately prevail.
Disposition and next steps
The court ordered that all other claims be dismissed without prejudice and that the clerk terminate all other defendants because no claims remained against them. The court directed service of the operative complaint and the order on Paul Estrada, Erik Beam, John Thich, Y. De Leon, Aldama, De La Torre, and D. Zaun through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process.
The defendants were ordered to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed. Herrera-Ramos’s opposition would be due 28 days after any such motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and explained that failure to oppose a summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against Herrera-Ramos without a trial.
Judge
Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered the amended order of partial dismissal and service on August 26, 2025.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.