Stafford v. State of California et al

Filing 26

ORDER re Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice 25 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 07/23/14. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MICHAEL CHASE STAFFORD,
Plaintiff.

13
v.

14
15

STATE of CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-00348-LJO-SKO
ORDER RE STIPULATION OF
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. 25)

18
19

Plaintiff Michael Stafford (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 on March 11, 2013. (Doc.

21

1.) This action is proceeding against Defendants Rodriguez and Solis (collectively,

22

“Defendants”) on Plaintiff=s Fourth Amendment claim.1 Defendants filed an answer on

23

November 15, 2013. (Doc. 11.)

24

On July 22, 2014, Defendants filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of the action

25

without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). In a letter to Defendants’ counsel dated July

26

13, 2014, Plaintiff writes, in pertinent part, “I Michael Chase Stafford am writing to ask to

27

dismiss the current case against Detective Solis, Detective Rodriguez … I believe that with my

28

1

Neither Detective Rodriguez nor Detective Solis’s full names are included in the Complaint or Defendants’
Answer.

1

1

research the detectives were doing there [sic] jobs and I don’t feel the need to pursue this

2

legally no more.” Plaintiff ended the letter by writing “Please file the dismissal motions thru

3

courts.” (Doc. 25-1, Exhibit A.) In a motion filed with the Court on July 14, 2014, however,

4

Plaintiff indicates he is “having trouble keeping up with the case. Therefore also would

5

consider dismissing the case, in a way where I could maybe refile at later time.” (Doc. 23.)

6

Plaintiff, therefore, appears to request a dismissal of the case without prejudice. Defendant, by

7

way of a filed stipulation, agrees to dismissal without prejudice. (Doc. 25.)

8

Accordingly, pursuant to the agreement of the parties and Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the remaining claims against the remaining defendants are DISMISSED

10

WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 23, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

24
25
26
27
28

2