Shaffer v. Tompkins
- Wise
- 5:26-cv-04375
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Devin Shaffer v. Tompkins, Judge Wise dismissed all other claims and defendants, kept four claims against two officers, and ordered service.
Devin Shaffer may continue with the sexual-harassment, excessive-force, and deliberate-indifference claims against Tompkins and the deliberate-indifference claim against Kimber. All other claims and defendants were dismissed. Officers Tompkins and Kimber must be served, and the parties must follow the court’s schedule and procedures.
What happened
In Devin Shaffer v. Tompkins, the court said Shaffer did not file an amended complaint within the 28-day deadline after an earlier screening order. The case therefore proceeds only on sexual-harassment, excessive-force, and deliberate-indifference claims against Tompkins, plus a deliberate-indifference claim against Kimber.
The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. It ordered that Officers Tompkins and Kimber be served and set deadlines for possible motions, Shaffer’s response, and any reply. The order also allowed discovery and warned Shaffer that failing to follow court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Judge Noél Wise issued the order on September 15, 2026. The order addresses which claims may proceed and case-management requirements; it does not decide whether Shaffer will ultimately win those claims.
The detailed version
- Shaffer v. Tompkins · No. 5:26-cv-04375
- Wise
- Sept. 15, 2026
Background
On July 27, 2026, the court screened Shaffer’s complaint. It identified some claims as legally sufficient to proceed and dismissed the remaining portions with leave to amend certain deficiencies within 28 days. The earlier order warned that, if Shaffer did not amend, the case would proceed only on specified claims against Tompkins and Kimber. More than 28 days passed without an amended complaint.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
The court determined that Shaffer stated cognizable claims of sexual harassment, excessive force, and deliberate indifference against Tompkins. It also determined that Shaffer stated a deliberate-indifference claim against Kimber.
Dismissals and Service
The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. It ordered service on Officers Tompkins, Badge No. 3153, and Kimber, Badge No. 3612. The Clerk was directed to mail the lawsuit and service-waiver materials, copies of the complaint and attachments, and copies of the order. The Clerk was also directed to email those documents to county counsel.
Case Schedule and Procedures
The court ordered the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion no later than 90 days after filing their waivers, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved that way. Any such motion must comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and include relevant records and incident reports.
When serving a dispositive motion, the defendants must also provide the notices required for summary-judgment motions and motions alleging failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Shaffer’s opposition, if any, is due 28 days after service of the motion, and any reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that the motion would be submitted when the reply is due and that no hearing would be held absent another court order.
The court also required Shaffer to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and instructed Shaffer to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders. The court warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
Effect of the Order
This is a screening and case-management order. It determines which claims and defendants remain in the case and establishes the next steps, but it does not decide the ultimate merits of the remaining claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.