Walker v. Perez

Background

Jeffery Walker, who is identified as a civil detainee at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights statute against officers of the jail and medical personnel at San Francisco General Hospital. The court screened his complaint on October 3, 2025, and allowed him to amend certain deficient claims or notify the court that he wanted to remove those claims and proceed with the claims the court found legally sufficient. The court warned that failing to respond would lead to dismissal with prejudice of the deficient claims while the legally sufficient claims continued.

After Walker did not respond by the deadline, the court dismissed the deficient claims with prejudice and ordered service of the remaining claims against the appropriate defendants on November 17, 2025. The court later learned that the service papers had been sent to the wrong address, so the defendants had not yet been served.

Order

The court directed the clerk to mail the lawsuit notice, two waiver-of-service forms, the complaint and attachments, the earlier partial-dismissal and service order, and this order to Officer Perez and Officer Ramirez through the Mayor’s Office at the address stated in the order. The clerk was also directed to send Walker a copy of this order.

The court terminated all previous briefing deadlines and reset them. Within 91 days after this order was filed, defendants must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims previously found legally sufficient. A dispositive motion is a motion that could resolve the claims or case without a trial. If defendants believe the case cannot be resolved through summary judgment, they must inform the court before that deadline.

If defendants file a summary-judgment motion, Walker’s opposition must be filed and served within 28 days after the motion is filed. Defendants’ reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The motion will be treated as submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will be held unless the court later orders one. The order also permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires Walker to serve copies of communications on defendants or their counsel, and warns that failing to prosecute the case or comply with orders could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).

Disposition and Significance

Judge Edward J. Davila’s order addressed service and case-management deadlines, not whether Walker or the defendants were right on the remaining claims. It directed re-service, reset the deadlines, and required defendants to file a dispositive motion or notify the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case.