Lucas v. County of Fresno ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMI LUCAS, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01488-DAD-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ MONELL CLAIM 13 v. PREMISED UPON ALLEGED CUSTOM OF UNSAFE FIREARM HANDLING 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, (ECF No. 64) 15 Defendant. 16 17 On December 22, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss “Plaintiffs’ Monell claim 18 premised upon the alleged custom of unsafe firearm handling with prejudice pursuant to Rule 19 41(a)(1)(ii), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (ECF No. 64.) 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) “does not allow for piecemeal dismissals” and 21 “withdrawals of individual claims against a given defendant are governed by [Federal Rule of 22 Civiil Procedure] 15, which addresses amendments to pleadings.” Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). As the Ninth Circuit has 23 explained: 24 25 [A] plaintiff may not use Rule 41(a)(1)(i) to dismiss, unilaterally, a single claim from a multi-claim complaint. Instead, . . . Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 15(a) is the appropriate mechanism where a plaintiff desires to eliminate an issue, or one or more but less than all of several claims, but 27 without dismissing as to any of the defendants. Id. at 687-88 (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 28 1 According to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against the County of 2 | Fresno is premised on several alleged patterns, customs, policies, practices, and/or procedures, 3 | including those related to handling firearms, training and supervision, approval of backup 4 | firearms and holsters, and covering up violations of constitutional rights. (See ECF No. 9 at 17- 5 | 18.) The parties’ stipulation seeks to dismiss only the portion of the Monell claim related to 6 handling firearms. (See ECF No. 64.) However, Rule 41(a)(1) does not allow for piecemeal 7 dismissals of claims and Plaintiff has not sought leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Rule 3 15. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Monell claim based on handling firearms (ECF No. 64) is DENIED.! 11 | IT IS SOORDERED. 12 Dated: _ January 4, 2022 [Jee ey 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | The Court’s order is without prejudice to the parties seeking a resolution under another mechanism, including but 28 | not limited to amending the complaint pursuant to Rule 15 or summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56.