Manriquez v. Huchins et al

Filing 380

ORDER Closing Case in Light of Unopposed 378 Request to Dismiss signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/02/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 DANIEL MANRIQUEZ, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, v. J. HUCHINS, et al., Defendants. 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-00456-BAM (PC) ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO DISMISS (ECF No. 378) 16 Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 31, 2014, the parties 18 participated in a settlement conference and reached a verbal settlement agreement. Dispositional 19 documents were to be filed within six months. (ECF No. 352.) 20 On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting voluntary dismissal of this 21 action. Plaintiff explains that Defendants have complied with the agreement by forwarding a 22 payment check to his mother. Plaintiff therefore requests that this Court dismiss the action with 23 prejudice. (ECF No. 378.) 24 On February 18, 2015, Defendants Hutchins, Reynoso, Hacker, Roberson, Munoz, 25 Morse, Pas, Omos and Clausings submitted a status report. Defendants join in Plaintiff’s request 26 to dismiss this matter. (ECF No. 379.) 27 28 Where a defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment but has not signed a stipulation to dismiss, a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal must be effected through Rule of 1 1 Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 2 692 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 41(a)(2) provides in relevant part: “Except as provided in Rule 3 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that 4 the court considers proper. . . . Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph 5 (2) is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 6 2003). “A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 7 a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 8 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 In this instance, Defendants join in the request to dismiss this action. Given Defendants’ 10 non-opposition, the Court finds no reason to deny Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal 11 under Rule 41(a)(2). Therefore, the Court shall grant the motion and close this action. See Fed. 12 R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Hargis, 312 F.3d at 412; Smith, 263 F.3d at 975. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) is GRANTED; 15 16 2. All pending motions, if any, are TERMINATED; and 17 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 18 This terminates the action in its entirety. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara March 2, 2015 22 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?