Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alejandro Arceo sued the City of Roseville and other defendants in the Eastern District of California in case number 2:20-cv-02334-DAD-SCR. On October 27, 2026, Arceo and the City filed a joint stipulation seeking dismissal of claims one through eight brought against the City. The filing was docketed as Document No. 231. The order does not describe the factual allegations underlying those claims or identify the other defendants.
Because the stipulation addressed some, but not all, of Arceo's claims against the City, the court did not treat it as a voluntary dismissal of the entire action against that defendant under Rule 41. Instead, it construed the filing as a motion to amend the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court relied on Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service for the proposition that withdrawing only some claims against a defendant should be treated as an amendment request rather than a Rule 41 dismissal request.
Arceo had already amended his complaint twice, in filings identified as Document Nos. 51 and 112. He therefore could not make the proposed third amendment as a matter of right. The court evaluated whether to grant leave under Rule 15(a), which generally calls for freely giving leave when justice requires but permits denial for prejudice, bad faith, undue delay, or futility.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to amend. It found no prejudice to the opposing party because Arceo sought to withdraw causes of action rather than add new ones. It quoted Watterson v. Fritcher for that distinction and Hells Canyon for the principle that prejudice does not attach to a claim properly dropped under Rule 15(a) before final judgment. The court also found that the proposed amendments were not sought in bad faith, would not unduly delay the litigation, and were not futile.
The operative order dismissed claims one through eight with prejudice as to defendant City of Roseville only. It expressly provided that the case would proceed against the City on claims nine through twelve and claim fourteen. The dismissal therefore did not end the action against the City, and the order did not state that it dismissed any claims against the other defendants.
The court directed Arceo to file his third amended complaint asserting only his remaining claims within fourteen days from the date of the order. The order was dated November 3, 2026, filed November 4, 2026, and signed by United States District Judge Dale A. Drozd. It resolved the amendment request and specified the claims remaining against the City; it did not decide the merits of those remaining claims or enter a final judgment disposing of the entire case.
Key Takeaways
- A stipulation dismissing only some claims against one defendant may be construed as a Rule 15 motion to amend rather than a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal.
- The court granted leave despite Arceo's two prior amendments because withdrawing claims did not prejudice the City and none of the other amendment-denial factors applied.
- Claims one through eight were dismissed with prejudice as to the City of Roseville only, while claims nine through twelve and claim fourteen remain pending against the City.
- Arceo must file a third amended complaint containing only the remaining claims within fourteen days of the order.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the procedural distinction between voluntarily dismissing an entire action against a defendant and narrowing the claims asserted against that defendant. Where only selected claims are withdrawn, Rule 15 governs the amendment, and the usual prejudice, bad-faith, undue-delay, and futility considerations determine whether leave should be granted.
Its practical effect is to narrow Arceo's case against the City without terminating that party's involvement. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves claims one through eight as to the City, but the surviving claims and the required third amended complaint leave the litigation moving forward. The order supplies no merits ruling on the surviving claims and no basis to infer their underlying factual subject matter.