Williams v. Cates et al

Filing 119

ORDER DISMISSING Action With Prejudice on Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/20/2018: The Clerk is ordered to close this case in light of the filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation For Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 118). (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

HORACE MANN WILLIAMS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00730-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE ON STIPULATION FOR
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE, FED. R. CIV. P. 41

CATE, et al.,
(Doc. 118)

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff, Horace Mann Williams, is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On July 19, 2018, the
parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice of this matter pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). Rule 41(a)(1)(A), in relevant part, reads:

19

21

the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of
dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for
summary judgment; (ii) a stipulated dismissal signed by all parties who have
appeared.

22

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) thus allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after service of an

23

answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties who have appeared,

24

although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan

25

Asso., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir.

26

1986).

20

27
28

Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in
open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
1

1

41(a)(1)(ii); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4. “Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule

2

41(a)(1)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and

3

does not require judicial approval.” In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Gardiner v.

4

A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG,

5

377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074,

6

1077 (9th Cir. 1999) cf. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (addressing

7

Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals). “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or

8

all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal “automatically terminates the

9

action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692; Concha

10

v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995).
Because the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with [without]

11
12
13
14
15

prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that is signed by all parties who have made an appearance,
this case has terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d at 466;
Gardiner, 747 F.2d at 1189; see also Gambale, 377 F.3d at 139; Commercial Space Mgmt, 193
F.3d at 1077; cf. Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light

16
17
18
19

of the filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation For Voluntary Dismissal With
Prejudice (Doc. 118).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

July 20, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.