Gamez v. Gonzalez, et al.

Filing 234

ORDER for Defendants Holland, Gonzalez, Tyree, Gentry, Adame, and Jakabosky to Respond to Plaintiff's 233 Notice of Dismissal, Within Twenty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/7/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SERGIO ALEJANDRO GAMEZ,

12
13
14
15

1:08-cv-01113-EPG-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS HOLLAND,
GONZALEZ, TYREE, GENTRY, ADAME,
AND JAKABOSKY TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DISMISSAL,
WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS
(ECF No. 233.)

vs.
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Sergio Alejandro Gamez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 with counsel appointed for limited purpose.1 Plaintiff filed

21

the Complaint commencing this action on August 1, 2008. (ECF No. 1.) This case now

22

proceeds on the Fourth Amended Complaint filed on November 8, 2013, with Plaintiff’s claims

23

for due process violations concerning his 2010 and 2012 gang validations, and related

24

retaliation claims, against defendants Holland, Gonzalez, Tyree, Gentry, Adame, and

25

Jakabosky (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 147.)

26
1

27
28

On December 10, 2015, the Court appointed M. Greg Mullanax as counsel for Plaintiff, for the
limited purpose of assisting Plaintiff with preparing for and participating in the February 18, 2016 settlement
conference. (ECF No. 212.)
1

1

The parties to this case have voluntarily consented to have the undersigned, Magistrate

2

Judge Erica P. Grosjean, conduct any and all further proceedings in the case, including

3

conducting the trial and entry of a final judgment.2

4

On February 18, 2016, a settlement conference was held in this case before Magistrate

5

Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, and the case settled. (ECF No. 232.) On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff

6

filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this case, with prejudice. (ECF No. 233.)

7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) “allows plaintiffs voluntarily to dismiss some or

8

all of their claims against some or all defendants.” Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire

9

Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a defendant has served an answer

10

or a motion for summary judgment but has not signed a stipulation to dismiss, a plaintiff’s

11

voluntary dismissal must be effected through Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Fed. R.

12

Civ. P. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 41(a)(2)

13

provides in pertinent part: “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at

14

the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. . . . Unless

15

the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Fed. R.

16

Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2003). “A district court should

17

grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it

18

will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th

19

Cir. 2001).

20

In this case, defendants Gonzales and Gentry filed and served an answer on December

21

19, 2013 (ECF No. 149); defendants Holland, Tyree, and Adame filed and served an answer on

22

March 20, 2014 (ECF No. 156); and defendant Jakabosky filed and served an answer on May

23

1, 2014 (ECF No. 164). Therefore, defendants Holland, Gonzalez, Tyree, Gentry, Adame, and

24
25
26
27
28

2

On May 9, 2014, defendants Gonzalez, Gentry, Holland, Tyree, Adame, and Jakabosky
consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 169.) On December 8,
2015, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge under 29 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 208.) On
December 10, 2015, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean for all further proceedings.
(ECF No. 210.)
2

1

Jakabosky shall be required to file a response to Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal, showing

2

whether they will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty (20) days of the date of

4

service of this order, defendants Holland, Gonzalez, Tyree, Gentry, Adame, and Jakabosky

5

shall respond in writing to Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal.

6
7

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 7, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3