Shaffer v. Wilson
- Wise
- 5:26-cv-05861
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Devin E. Shaffer v. David Wilson, Judge Wise dismissed all other claims and defendants after no amendment, preserving excessive-force claims against Mark Huiskens and Gabriela Jefferson.
Devin E. Shaffer’s case was narrowed to excessive-force claims against Mark Huiskens and Gabriela Jefferson. The other claims and defendants were dismissed, while Huiskens and Jefferson were ordered to be served and respond under the schedule set by the court.
What happened
In Devin E. Shaffer v. David Wilson, the court had screened Shaffer’s complaint and found that some claims could proceed, while allowing him 28 days to correct problems with the others. Shaffer did not file an amended complaint within that time.
The court dismissed all claims and defendants except excessive-force claims against Mark Huiskens and Gabriela Jefferson. The Clerk was ordered to serve Huiskens and Jefferson, and the court set deadlines for future dispositive motions, responses, and replies.
Judge Noél Wise ordered the case to continue on the two excessive-force claims. The order also allowed discovery and warned Shaffer that failing to follow court orders or keep the court informed of an address change could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Shaffer v. Wilson · No. 5:26-cv-05861
- Wise
- Sept. 15, 2026
Background
On August 13, 2026, the court screened Shaffer’s complaint. It identified excessive-force claims against Mark Huiskens and Gabriela Jefferson as claims that could proceed, but dismissed the remaining claims with leave to amend to address stated deficiencies. The court warned that if Shaffer did not amend within 28 days, the case would continue only on the excessive-force claims against Huiskens and Jefferson.
More than 28 days passed, and Shaffer did not file an amended complaint.
Ruling
The court ordered that:
- Shaffer stated claims that could proceed for excessive force against Huiskens and Jefferson. - All other claims and defendants were dismissed. - Huiskens and Jefferson were to be served with the lawsuit documents.
The order did not state that the dismissed claims or defendants were dismissed with or without prejudice.
Future proceedings
The court ordered Huiskens and Jefferson to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion that could resolve the case within 90 days after filing their service waivers, unless they informed the court that such a motion was not appropriate. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to decide the case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result.
Shaffer would have 28 days to oppose any dispositive motion, and the defendants would have 14 days to file a reply. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one. Discovery, including depositions, could begin under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without another court order.
The order also required Shaffer to serve his communications on the defendants or their counsel, notify the court separately of any address change, and comply with court orders. The court warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.