Walker v. Ibarra
- Edward Davila
- 5:25-cv-07745
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Walker v. Ibarra, Judge Davila reset service and deadlines in the civil-rights case without deciding its remaining claims.
Jeffery Walker, Officer Mohamed, Officer Tillory, and the unidentified nurse defendants. The Clerk must re-serve Mohamed and Tillory; defendants must address the remaining cognizable claims in a dispositive motion or notice; and Walker must pursue identification of the three nurse defendants.
What happened
Jeffery Walker v. Sgt. Ibarra, et al. is a civil-rights case brought by Walker, who is representing himself, against officers and medical staff at the San Francisco County Jail. The court had previously dismissed some claims and allowed other claims to proceed, but defendants had not been served because the papers went to the wrong address.
The court ordered the Clerk to resend the lawsuit and related documents to Officer Mohamed and Officer Tillory through the San Francisco Mayor’s Office. It also ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion resolving the case within 91 days, allowed discovery, and required Walker to try to identify three nurse defendants whose names were unknown. Walker was warned that failing to identify those defendants by the deadline could result in dismissal of the claims against them.
Judge Edward J. Davila reset the deadlines and issued instructions for service, motions, discovery, and communications, while leaving the earlier partial-dismissal order in effect.
The detailed version
- Walker v. Ibarra · No. 5:25-cv-07745
- Edward Davila
- Mar. 12, 2026
Background
Jeffery Walker, a civil detainee at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer against officers and medical staff at the jail. On January 13, 2026, the court screened his complaint, found deficiencies in some claims, and gave him the option to amend those claims or notify the court that he wished to proceed only on the claims the court found legally sufficient.
Walker did not respond by the deadline. On February 24, 2026, the court dismissed the deficient claims with prejudice and ordered service of the claims it found legally sufficient against the appropriate defendants. The current order states that the service papers were sent to the wrong address and that defendants had not yet been served. It also states that the prior order of partial dismissal and service remains in effect.
Orders issued
The court directed the Clerk to send the notice of lawsuit, service-waiver forms, complaint and attachments, the earlier partial-dismissal and service order, and the current order to Officer Mohamed and Officer Tillory through the Mayor’s Office at the address listed in the order. The Clerk was also directed to send Walker a copy of the current order.
The court ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion—meaning a motion seeking to resolve the remaining cognizable claims—no later than 91 days after the current order was filed. Any summary-judgment motion must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and include adequate factual documentation. The order states that summary judgment and qualified immunity cannot be granted when material facts are disputed. If a defendant believed the case could not be resolved through summary judgment, that defendant was required to inform the court before the motion deadline.
The court directed that Walker receive required warnings if defendants file a summary-judgment motion. The order also permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires defendants to file any reply within 14 days after Walker’s opposition, and states that no hearing will be held unless the court later orders one. Walker must serve copies of his communications with the court on defendants or their counsel.
Unidentified defendants and deadlines
During discovery, Walker must try to learn the names of Nurse Jane Does 1–2 and Nurse John Doe 3 and file a motion to substitute their proper names within 56 days after the order was filed. The order states that failure to do so will result in dismissal of the claims against those unidentified defendants for failure to state a claim for relief.
The court also reminded Walker that he is responsible for prosecuting the case, must keep the court informed of any address change, and must comply with court orders. The order states that failure to do so may lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Requests for extensions must be filed no later than the deadline being challenged and must show good cause.
Disposition
This order does not decide the merits of the claims that remained after the earlier partial dismissal. It directs re-service and establishes case-management deadlines and procedures. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on March 12, 2026.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.