Atcherley v. Clark et al

Filing 309

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS re 308 ; ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT re 276 , 294 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/2/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILBUR ATCHERLEY, 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 14 CLARK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:12cv00225 LJO DLB (PC) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS (Document 308) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT (Documents 276 and 294) 18 Plaintiff William Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Third 20 Amended Complaint, filed on January 26, 2015, for violation of the Eighth Amendment and 21 negligence against numerous Defendants. 22 On October 30, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of Defendants E. 23 Clark, D. Abadia, M. Ceballos, D. Castanon, A. Martinez, O. Borbolla, D. Brown, R. Hernandez, L. 24 Valentine, A. Holt, P. Kempf, H. Walker, L. Montebon, M. VanNatta, J. Kim, P. Amobi, S. Branson 25 and T. Ross. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii). 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 1 2 3 4 The stipulation is GRANTED. Defendants E. Clark, D. Abadia, M. Ceballos, D. Castanon, A. Martinez, O. Borbolla, D. Brown, R. Hernandez, L. Valentine, A. Holt, P. Kempf, H. Walker, L. Montebon, M. VanNatta, J. Kim, P. Amobi, S. Branson and T. Ross are DISMISSED from this action WITH PREJUDICE.1 5 6 Defendant Kim’s motion to dismiss (Document 276) and Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery (Document 294) are DENIED AS MOOT. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill November 2, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendants Rios and Torres remain in this action. 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?