Goolsby v. Cate et al

Filing 91

ORDER Giving Full Effect to Stipulation to Dismiss Case, with Prejudice, under Rule 41, and Ordering Clerk to Close Case signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/07/2016. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG-PC

v.
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

15

ORDER GIVING FULL EFFECT TO
STIPULATION TO DISMISS CASE, WITH
PREJUDICE, UNDER RULE 41, AND
ORDERING CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

Defendants.
(Doc. No. 90)

16
17

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

18
19

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case now proceeds on the second amended complaint

20

filed on June 6, 2014, in which plaintiff alleges Eighth Amendment claims against defendants

21

Warden Holland, Warden Stainer, and Captain J. Lundy, for denial of adequate outdoor exercise

22

time; and defendants Captain J. Lundy, Sergeant S. Foster, Plumlee (Maintenance Supervisor),

23

Warden Holland, Correctional Officer Jordan, and Correctional Officer Uribe, for deliberate

24

indifference to unsanitary and unsafe conditions of confinement.1 (Doc. No. 34.)
On August 22, 2016, a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice was filed with

25
26
27
28

the court, reflecting the signatures of plaintiff and counsel for defendants Holland, Stainer,
1

On March 24, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this action, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (Doc. No. 36.)
1

1

Lundy, Foster, Plumlee, Jordon, and Uribe. (Doc. No. 90.) The parties’ stipulation states that

2

plaintiff Thomas Goolsby and defendants Foster, Holland, Jordan, Lundy, Plumlee, Stainer, and

3

Uribe have resolved this case in its entirety and therefore stipulate to the dismissal of this action

4

with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows plaintiffs to “dismiss an action

5
6

without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.”

7

See also Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1095 (9th Cir. 2016). The stipulation filed on August

8

22, 2016 is signed by all parties who have appeared in this action. Therefore, the parties’

9

stipulation is given full force and effect, and this case is dismissed with prejudice. The clerk shall

10

close the case.

11
12

Accordingly:
1. The parties’ stipulation for voluntary dismissal of this action with prejudice is effective as

13

of the date it was filed;

14

2. This case is dismissed with prejudice; and

15

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 7, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2