Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01134/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01134-12/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 DENYING RULE 41 STIPULATION 

AS PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER,

REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS AND ANY 

JOINING PARTIES TO FILE MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND IN LIGHT OF 

OPPOSITION, AND REQUIRING PARTIES 

TO ADDRESS PREVIOUSLY ENTERED 

STIPULATION OF CLARIFICATION 

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

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE 

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

dismiss, Plaintiff 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. (“CFMG”), Genevieve Garcia, R.N., and Maria Guerrero, R.N. (ECF No. 88.) 

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 93 Filed 10/13/23 Page 1 of 4
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.

Therefore, because the stipulation requests 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, is the proper vehicle to accomplish the partial dismissal (ECF No. 90). 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)). Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 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 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 (the “County Defendants”), to 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.) Therefore, there is not consent from all 

parties to amendment or dismissal. In light of the opposition, the Court is unable to construe the 

Rule 41 dismissal as a stipulation for leave to amend under Rule 15, and instead, if Plaintiffs and 

the stipulating parties wish to amend the complaint, Plaintiffs shall file a motion for leave to 

Case 1:21-cv-01134-KES-SAB Document 93 Filed 10/13/23 Page 2 of 4
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

amend with any joining parties. 

The Court turns to a related issue. On September 26, 2023, the parties filed a stipulated 

request to clarify the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 86.)1 On September 26, 2023, the 

Court entered the stipulation of clarification, and issued an order deeming Plaintiffs’ complaint 

amended to reflect the correct “Sanchez” is 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. (ECF No. 87.)2 However, upon review of clarification stipulation, it was not signed by 

all Defendants but rather only counsel for the County Defendants. (ECF No. 86.) In light of the

more recent stipulation and now opposition by the County Defendants thereto, and to ensure 

uniform and equal application of the rules and law, the Court shall additionally require the 

parties notify the Court if any parties oppose the Court’s previous entering of that stipulation. 

In that regard, the parties shall meet and confer regarding whether there is agreement to 

grant leave to file an amended complaint as to the content of both stipulations, and if not, 

Plaintiff and any parties joining in a motion for leave to amend (or one individual component of 

leave to amend), shall file such motion for leave to amend. If the parties do not agree to the 

previous amendment, and the parties do not file a motion for leave, or if the Court denies leave to 

amend, it will strike the September 26, 2023, order entering the stipulation of clarification. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

1

 First, two Defendants have the last name “Sanchez.” In paragraphs 31, 33, 40, and 42 of the second amended 

complaint, Plaintiffs refer to “Sanchez” or “Officer Sanchez” without specifying the first name of the referenced 

person. The Parties stipulated that: (a) in paragraphs 31 and 33, “Sanchez” and “Officer Sanchez” refer to Officer 

Jonathan Sanchez; and (b) in paragraphs 40 and 42, “Sanchez” and “Officer Sanchez” refer to Officer Anthony 

Sanchez. (ECF No. 86.) Second, the parties stipulated that Plaintiffs do not seek punitive or treble damages from 

Defendant County of Fresno. (Id.) 

2

 While clarifying the names “Sanchez” is really a minor clarification, the removal of punitive damages is more 

substantive. However, the Court notes a claim for punitive damages is likely not considered an independent cause 

of action. See Turner v. Modesto Police Dep't, No. 123CV00210ADASAB, 2023 WL 4424588, at *16 (E.D. Cal. 

July 10, 2023) (“A request for punitive damages is not a standalone cause of action, it is merely a type of remedy 

that is dependent upon a viable cause of action.” (citing, e.g., Marroquin v. Pfizer, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 3d 1152, 1168 

(E.D. Cal. 2019))). 

Case 1:21-cv-01134-KES-SAB Document 93 Filed 10/13/23 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of entry of this 

order: 

1. The stipulated Rule 41 dismissal filed October 4, 2023, (ECF No. 88), as opposed 

(ECF No. 92), is DENIED as procedurally improper; 

2. If there is agreement of the parties, the parties shall file a stipulation for leave to 

amend specifically relating to either of the above described requests previously 

filed by the parties (ECF Nos. 86, 88); 

3. If there is not a stipulation from all parties as to any component of leave, Plaintiff, 

and any joining parties, may file a motion for leave to amend the complaint 

requesting leave to amend as to any above described component; and 

4. If no motion or stipulation is filed, the Court will strike the previous order 

entering and approving the stipulation of clarification (ECF Nos. 86, 87). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01134-KES-SAB Document 93 Filed 10/13/23 Page 4 of 4