legal-news

Johnson v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department et al

25-cv-05558
Active Court order issued Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Johnson is suing the San Francisco Sheriff's Department and additional defendants under docket 25-cv-05558, and the court has ruled on a motion to dismiss at entry 28. The Sheriff's Department as a named defendant points toward civil rights claims — most likely excessive force, unlawful detention, or conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The motion to dismiss ruling is the pivotal event here. Whether the court granted, denied, or partially dismissed the complaint will determine which claims and defendants survive into discovery.

Latest development

3:25-cv-05558 Johnson v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department et al

Order · April 20, 2026

A Motion was filed.

description View filing

Key Issues

  • Outcome and scope of the motion to dismiss ruling
  • Surviving § 1983 claims against the Sheriff's Department
  • Qualified immunity for individual officer defendants
  • Monell liability — whether the department had a policy or custom causing harm
  • Plaintiff's damages theory
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 1 hour, 28 minutes ago

A motion was filed in Johnson v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department et al (docket 25-cv-05558) on April 20, 2026. The case is active, but a judge has not yet been assigned, and the court of record has not been confirmed in available docket data.

The case name and the reference to an order on a motion to dismiss suggest Johnson is a plaintiff pressing claims against the San Francisco Sheriff's Department and unnamed additional defendants. Civil rights suits against county sheriff's departments in California typically allege constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 — excessive force, unlawful detention, or conditions of confinement — though the specific claims here have not been confirmed from available filings.

The docket entry referencing an 'Order on Motion to Dismiss' signals the defense moved early to knock out some or all of Johnson's claims. Whether the court granted, denied, or partially granted that motion is not yet clear from the available record. That ruling, once confirmed, will define what claims survive and what discovery looks like.

Without a confirmed judge, a filed date, or the full text of the motion to dismiss order, the case's trajectory is hard to read. The April 20, 2026 filing is the only confirmed docket event. Everything else — the scope of claims, the parties' litigation posture, any scheduling order — remains unconfirmed.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event
gavel
Order 1 hour ago
A Motion was filed.
receipt_long Source (filing) expand_more

Order on Motion to Dismiss ( 28

Open original open_in_new

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

2 events
gavel
Order April 20, 2026

3:25-cv-05558 Johnson v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department et al

A Motion was filed.

info
Other April 20, 2026

1:25-cv-05687 Garvey v. Johnson

Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

2 articles
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

2 outlets · 2 articles

Timeline events

2 records on file

Last updated

1 hour, 8 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.