Ramirez v. Hernandez
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-02299
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ramirez v. Hernandez, Judge Donato dismissed Ramirez’s pro se civil-rights complaint with prejudice after finding it failed to state a claim.
Caesar Ramirez’s Section 1983 complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and he was denied permission to amend it. Juanna Greheada Hernandez was the named defendant.
What happened
Caesar Ramirez, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under a federal law known as Section 1983 against Juanna Greheada Hernandez. He asked the state to prosecute Hernandez, whom he said killed his mother and was a cannibal.
The court screened the complaint and found that these allegations did not state a legally actionable Section 1983 claim. The court also denied Ramirez permission to amend because it concluded that no amendment could fix the complaint’s problems.
In Ramirez v. Hernandez, Judge James Donato dismissed the complaint with prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Hernandez · No. 3:23-cv-02299
- James Donato
- July 17, 2023
Background
Caesar Ramirez, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion says he had been granted permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The complaint was against Juanna Greheada Hernandez.
Ramirez asked the state to prosecute Hernandez, a private citizen whom he said had killed his mother. He also alleged that Hernandez was a cannibal.
Court’s analysis
The court conducted the preliminary screening required for prisoner complaints seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. At screening, the court must identify legally sufficient claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, but they still must contain enough factual allegations to make a claim legally plausible.
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and a deprivation committed by a person acting under state law. The court concluded that Ramirez’s allegations were “patently inactionable” and failed to state a claim under Section 1983.
Disposition
The court denied leave to amend because it found that no amendment could cure the complaint’s deficiencies. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk was requested to close the case. Judge James Donato signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.