Porter v. Solano County Sheriff's Office

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Nakia V. Porter, et al., No. 2:21-cv-01473-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. County of Solano, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The parties have filed a stipulation and proposed order to clarify the third amended 18 | complaint and dismiss certain claims. ECF No. 139. In portions of that filing, the parties agree to 19 | the dismissal of some claims by some plaintiffs against some defendants. See, e.g., id. at 4 (“The 20 | Tenth Claim is hereby dismissed by Ms. Porter with prejudice only as against individual 21 | Defendants Stockton, Carter, and Hamilton.”). The Ninth Circuit has held that “withdrawals of 22 | individual claims against a given defendant are governed by [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15], 23 | which addresses amendments to pleadings.” Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest 24 | Service, 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005). That rule “is the appropriate mechanism where a 25 | plaintiff desires to eliminate an issue, or one or more but less than all of several claims, but 26 | without dismissing as to any of the defendants.” /d. at 688 (citations, alterations and quotation 27 | marks omitted). The court therefore construes the filing at ECF No. 139 as a stipulated request 28 | for leave to amend the complaint and grants that request for good cause and in the interest of

1 | justice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), 15(a). Within fourteen days, plaintiffs shall file a further 2 | amended complaint reflecting the clarifications and proposals in the filing at ECF No. 139. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: August 12, 2024. / / CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE