Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01138/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01138-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On July 3, 2019, the Court granted Crystal Botello’s application for appointment as guardian ad 

litem for her minor son, Plaintiff J.A.J. (Doc. 35; see Doc. 33.) On February 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an 

“Application for Appointment of Santana Juarez Jimenez as Successor Guardian Ad Litem for Minor 

Plaintiff J.A.J., Successor in Interest to Santana Juarez Gonzalez.” (Doc. 41.) The application states 

that Ms. Botello “feels the time necessary to act on behalf of [J.A.J.] is overly burdensome” and Mr. 

Jimenez, Plaintiff J.A.J.’s grandfather, “has executed a Consent to Act as Successor Guardian ad Litem 

for said minor plaintiff.” (Id. at 2.) The application attaches a declination to act as guardian ad litem 

completed by Crystal Botello, and a consent to act as successor guardian ad litem completed by Santana 

Juarez Jimenez. (Docs. 41-1, 41-2.)

J.A.J, a minor, through his mother and Next 

Friend, CRYSTAL BOTELLO, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

State of California Highway Patrol Officer 

EFRAIN JIMENEZ, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-01138-DAD-SKO

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF SANTANA JUAREZ 

JIMENEZ AS SUCCESSOR GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM FOR MINOR PLAINTIFF J.A.J.

(Doc. 41)

Case 1:18-cv-01138-DAD-SKO Document 42 Filed 02/06/20 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

The application also states that “[u]pon his appointment, Santana Juarez Jimenez requests this 

Court dismiss his claims, as alleged in the complaint[.]” (Id.) However, the application later states that 

“[u]pon appointment of Santana Juarez Jimenez as Successor Guardian ad Litem, the parties shall file a 

stipulation for the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of the claims of Santana Juarez Jimenez[.]” (Doc. 

41-3 at 2.) Plaintiffs state that the dismissal of Mr. Jimenez’s claims is necessary to ensure that Mr. 

Jimenez “will have no interest potentially adverse to minor plaintiff J.A.J.” (Doc. 41 at 2.) 

Good cause appears to appoint Santana Juarez Jimenez as Plaintiff J.A.J.’s guardian ad litem 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2). See Local Rule 202(a). However, the Court will 

require the parties to file a separate joint stipulation, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing Santana Juarez Jimenez’s claims, since the application does not 

include such a stipulation and the parties indicated they intend to stipulate to the dismissal of his claims.

1

 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Crystal Botello is RELIEVED as guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff J.A.J.;

2. Santana Juarez Jimenez is APPOINTED as guardian ad litem for minor Plaintiff J.A.J.; 

and

3. The parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, signed by all parties who have appeared, dismissing Santana Juarez 

Jimenez’s claims by no later than February 12, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

1

In relevant part, Rule 41 provides as follows: “[A] plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing. . . (ii) a 

stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). “The plaintiff may dismiss 

some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims” through a Rule 41(a)(1) stipulation. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 

111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Such stipulation may be made orally in open court. See Carter v. Beverly Hills Savings 

& Loan Association, 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986).

Case 1:18-cv-01138-DAD-SKO Document 42 Filed 02/06/20 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

Dated: February 6, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01138-DAD-SKO Document 42 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 3