Stelly v. Shiffer
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-06775
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Stelly v. Shiffer, Judge Corley struck an unsigned amended complaint, dismissed other claims without leave to amend, and allowed excessive-force claims to proceed.
The ruling affects Kamani Courvoisier Stelly and Deputies Kapustin and Shiffer. Stelly's excessive-force claims against Kapustin and Shiffer remain pending; his other claims were dismissed without leave to amend.
What happened
In Stelly v. Shiffer, Kamani Courvoisier Stelly, who was representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law. An earlier review found that his excessive-force claims against Deputies Kapustin and Shiffer could proceed, but found problems with his other claims and allowed him to amend.
Stelly filed an amended complaint, but it was unsigned. The court ordered him to file a signed version by May 30, 2025, and warned that failing to do so would result in the amended complaint being struck and the other claims being dismissed. He did not file a signed amended complaint.
Judge Corley struck the unsigned amended complaint, allowed only the original excessive-force claims against Kapustin and Shiffer to proceed, and dismissed the other claims without leave to amend. The court ordered service on the two deputies and set deadlines for their response and any dispositive motion.
The detailed version
- Stelly v. Shiffer · No. 3:24-cv-06775
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 3, 2025
Background
Kamani Courvoisier Stelly, an inmate at the Martinez Detention Facility, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while proceeding without an attorney. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel E. Cousins initially reviewed the complaint under the federal screening law for complaints filed by incarcerated people, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
That review found that Stelly stated claims that could be decided by a court against Deputies Kapustin and Shiffer for using excessive force. The review found that Stelly's remaining claims—including claims against Deputy Cubit and claims concerning his cell conditions and medical care—were deficient. Judge Cousins allowed Stelly to file an amended complaint to correct those deficiencies.
Stelly filed an amended complaint, but it was not signed. On April 24, 2025, the court ordered him to file a signed amended complaint by May 30, 2025. The order warned that failure to do so would result in the unsigned amended complaint being struck, the case proceeding only on the original excessive-force claims against Kapustin and Shiffer, and the other claims being dismissed without further leave to amend. The deadline passed without Stelly filing a signed amended complaint.
Ruling
The court struck the unsigned amended complaint. The case will proceed only on the excessive-force claims against Deputies Kapustin and Shiffer from the original complaint. The court dismissed all other claims without leave to amend, relying on the reasons stated in Judge Cousins's earlier screening order.
The court also ordered the clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the original complaint and the order on Deputies Kapustin and Shiffer without requiring advance payment of fees. The defendants were ordered to file an answer. The court set October 3, 2025, as the deadline for a summary-judgment motion or other dispositive motion, October 31, 2025, for Stelly's opposition, and November 14, 2025, for the defendants' reply. The order also authorized discovery and reminded Stelly that he must prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court deadlines.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.