Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01134/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01134-11/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 RE STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF 

ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS, 

GENEVIEVE GARCIA, R.N. AND MARIA 

GUERRERO, R.N.

(ECF No. 88)

SEVEN DAY DEADLINE

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiffs and Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. 

(“CFMG”), Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. filed what was titled a joint 

stipulation to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second cause of action against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, 

R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. (ECF No. 88.) However, the body of the filed document is in 

the form of a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), signed by

only Plaintiffs and Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. (“CFMG”), Genevieve 

Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) cannot be used 

to dismiss individual claims against defendants, and that Rule 15 is the proper mechanism to do 

so. 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 

Case 1:21-cv-01134-KES-SAB Document 90 Filed 10/05/23 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

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 single claim from a multi-claim 

complaint.”); but see Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The 

Plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 

41(a)(1) notice.”). Accordingly, Rule 41(a) may not be employed to dismiss fewer than all the 

claims against a particular defendant. See Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1392.

The stipulating parties in the instant motion are requesting that the Court eliminate only

the second cause of action against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria Guerrero, R.N. 

(See ECF 88.) However, both Defendants remain named defendants in other causes of action in 

the second amended complaint. (See ECF 85.) Because the instant motion requests dismissal of

fewer than all claims asserted against Defendants Genevieve Garcia, R.N. and Maria Guerrero, 

R.N., Rule 15, not Rule 41, is the proper vehicle to accomplish the partial dismissal.

The Court finds it proper to construe the parties’ instant stipulation to dismiss the second 

cause of action against Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. as consent to amend

the complaint under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hells Canyon Pres. 

Council, 403 F.3d at 689 (“The fact that a voluntary dismissal of a claim under Rule 41(a) is 

properly labeled an amendment under Rule 15 is a technical, not a substantive distinction.”) 

(quoting Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., 203 F.3d 782, 784 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). However, Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), states “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing 

party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Here, Defendants County of Fresno, Fresno County 

Sheriff-Coroner 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 have not agreed

to the instant motion. If these Defendants consent or otherwise file a non-opposition to the 

instant stipulation (ECF No. 88), the Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to file an amended 

complaint pursuant to Rule 15. The Court will otherwise take any opposition by these 

Defendants under consideration in determining whether to grant leave to amend.

Case 1:21-cv-01134-KES-SAB Document 90 Filed 10/05/23 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven (7) days of entry of this 

order, Defendants County of Fresno, Fresno County Sheriff-Coroner 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 shall file a statement signifying whether they 

approve or disapprove of the terms of the stipulation filed on October 4, 2023 (ECF No. 88), 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01134-KES-SAB Document 90 Filed 10/05/23 Page 3 of 3