Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01134/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01134-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORIS ANDERSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01134-ADA-SAB

ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ 

STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 95) 

SEVEN DAY DEADLINE 

Following the adoption of findings and recommendations on Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on September 7, 2023. (ECF No. 85.) On 

October 4, 2023, a stipulation to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second cause of action against Defendants 

Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N, was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a), signed by only Plaintiffs and Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, 

Inc., Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. (ECF No. 88.) 

Because the stipulation requested dismissal of fewer than all claims asserted against 

Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria Guerrero, R.N., the Court found Rule 15, not 

Rule 41, was the proper vehicle. (ECF No. 90). See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest 

Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In the specific context of Rule 41(a)(1), we have held 

that the Rule does not allow for piecemeal dismissals. Instead, withdrawals of individual claims 

against a given defendant are governed by [Rule 15].”); Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 

F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding a plaintiff cannot use Rule 41 “to dismiss, unilaterally, a 

Case 1:21-cv-01134-KES-SAB Document 96 Filed 10/30/23 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

single claim from a multi-claim complaint”). Rule 15 provides that “a party may amend its 

pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Therefore, on 

October 5, 2023, the Court ordered Defendants County of Fresno, Fresno County SheriffCoroner Margaret Mims, Correctional Lieutenant Jami Carter, Sergeant Chris Garcia, and 

Officers Frank Ponce, Moises Franco, Meng Cha, Linda Thao, Ka Her, Jose Alanis, Anthony 

Sanchez, Rachel LeBoeuf, David Ventura, Dillon Owens, and Jonathan Sanchez (the “County 

Defendants”), file a statement signifying whether they approve or disapprove of the terms of the 

stipulation filed on October 4, 2023, and consent to allowing for Plaintiffs’ second cause of 

action against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. be dismissed with 

prejudice. (ECF No. 90.) 

On October 12, 2023, the County Defendants filed a statement indicating that Defendants

Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N., should not be dismissed from the second 

claim for relief for excessive force. (ECF No. 92.) Because there was not consent from all 

parties to amendment or dismissal, the Court ordered that if Plaintiffs and the stipulating parties 

wished to amend the complaint, that Plaintiffs shall file a motion for leave to amend with any 

joining parties. (ECF No. 93.)

The Court also recognized that the parties’ September 26, 2023 stipulated request to 

clarify the second amended complaint to correct “Sanchez” as referred to in particular points of 

the complaint, and to reflect that Plaintiffs do not seek punitive or treble damages from 

Defendant County of Fresno, was not signed by all Defendants. (ECF No. 87.) Accordingly, 

due to the multiple ancillary requests by the parties outside conformance with both Rule 41 and 

Rule 15, the Court ordered, in part, that the parties file a stipulation which contains the 

agreement of all parties to amend the complaint as to both the dismissal of Defendants 

Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria Guerrero, R.N. from the second cause of action and to the 

clarifications regarding “Sanchez” and damages against Defendant County of Fresno. (ECF No. 

93.) Alternatively, if all parties in this action did not stipulate to the described requests, the 

Court ordered Plaintiffs and any joining parties to file a leave to amend the second amended 

complaint by October 27, 2023. 

Case 1:21-cv-01134-KES-SAB Document 96 Filed 10/30/23 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

On October 27, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation by all parties to this action 

dismissing Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief against two defendants and clarifying Plaintiffs’

second amended complaint. (ECF No. 95.) Specifically, the parties proffer they stipulate to the 

following: (1) “dismiss[al]” of Plaintiffs’ second claim for relief, 42 U.S.C. §1983 Excessive 

Force in Violation of Fourth Amendment, against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria 

Guerrero, R.N. with prejudice and each party bearing their own costs and fees; (2) clarification

that in paragraphs 31 and 33 of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, “Sanchez” and “Officer 

Sanchez” refer to Officer Jonathan Sanchez, and in paragraphs 40 and 42, “Sanchez” and 

“Officer Sanchez” refer to Officer Anthony Sanchez; and (3) Plaintiffs do not seek punitive or 

treble damages from Defendant County of Fresno. (Id. at 3.) Alternatively, the parties stipulate 

to the Court granting Plaintiffs leave to amend the second amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 

15, to make only the changes described in the stipulation. (Id.) The Court finds a third amended 

complaint is necessary to both properly conform with Rule 15 and maintain a clear and concise 

docket. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties’ stipulated request for leave to amend Plaintiffs’ second amended 

complaint subject to the limitations as stipulated by the parties (ECF No. 95) is 

GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiffs shall file the third amended complaint within seven (7) days of entry of 

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01134-KES-SAB Document 96 Filed 10/30/23 Page 3 of 3