Herrera-Ramos v. Thich
5:25-cv-01366
| N.D. Cal. | Jul 15, 2025Background
- Jose Herrera-Ramos, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional staff and the warden at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), alleging multiple incidents of excessive force, retaliation, and failure to protect him from harm by staff and inmates.
- Plaintiff claims that correctional officers used excessive force, retaliated against him for attempting to report misconduct, and threatened/intimidated both him and his girlfriend over several incidents from December 2022 through August 2024.
- Key factual allegations include severe beatings by correctional officers, denial of medical care and meals, staff intimidation to prevent reporting of misconduct, set-up of false disciplinary charges, and desertion of internal prison complaint procedures.
- The case is at a preliminary screening stage under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; the court is tasked with identifying any cognizable claims and dismissing any that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from immune defendants.
- The court considered both Eighth Amendment excessive force/failure to protect claims and First Amendment retaliation claims, as well as claims relating to prison grievance processes and threats.
- The court granted partial dismissal and leave to amend for certain claims, clarifying which claims survive and which must be amended or are dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive Force by Officers | Officers used unjustified, severe physical force | Not stated in opinion | Cognizable—claims may proceed |
| Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct | Officers retaliated against him for complaints | Not stated in opinion | Some claims cognizable; others must be amended |
| Failure to Protect from Inmate Assault | Officers allowed/encouraged inmate attacks | Not stated in opinion | Cognizable as to specific named defendants |
| Claims Based on Threats/Grievance Processing | Threats/intimidation, failure to process grievances | Not stated in opinion | Not cognizable—dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (establishes that excessive force claims by prisoners are actionable even without serious injury)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (requires liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (elements required for a § 1983 claim)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (sets forth elements for First Amendment retaliation claims by prisoners)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (tests for failure to protect claims under Eighth Amendment)
- Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2003) (no constitutional right to a specific prison grievance process)
- Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1993) (failure to process grievance not actionable under § 1983)
- Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1987) (threats alone not actionable under § 1983)