Gonzalez v. Guirbino et al
ORDER Directing Parties to Advise Whether They Stipulate to Dismissal of This Action Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/7/2016. Defendants' Statement due within fifteen (15) days. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EVERETT GALINDO GONZALEZ,
GUIRBINO, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00173-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO ADVISE
WHETHER THEY STIPULATE TO
DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION PER
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Plaintiff, Everett Galindo Gonzalez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 3, 2014. On
18 October 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice.
19 (Doc. 36.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s notice as an attempt to voluntarily dismiss this action
20 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (ARule 41@).
Rule 41(a)(1)(A) allows a Plaintiff to Adismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i)
22 a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary
23 judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.@ Subsection
24 (B) of Rule 41 provides that, A[u]nless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is
25 without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based
26 on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.@
27 Subsection (2) of Rule 41provides in pertinent part that, A[e]xcept as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an
28 action may be dismissed at the plaintiff=s request only by court order, on terms that the court
1 considers proper. . . .@ Defendants have answered and their motion for summary judgment is
2 currently pending. Thus, at this stage in the litigation, Plaintiff may not simply dismiss the action
3 of his own accord.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants shall file a statement within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of this order indicating whether they are willing to stipulate to dismissal of this
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41;
2. If Defendants are willing to stipulate to dismissal, defense counsel shall
concurrently submit a statement stipulating to dismissal of this action on
Defendants’ behalf which shall indicate:
(a) whether Defendants stipulate to dismissal of the action with or without
(b) whether Defendants are willing to waive costs to which they might
otherwise be entitled;1
3. If Defendants are not willing to stipulate to the dismissal of this action, defense
counsel shall concurrently submit any objections.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall take one of the following
18 actions within twenty-five (25) days of the date defense counsel=s response is filed with the Court:
1. If Defendants are willing to stipulate to dismissal of this action under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41, Plaintiff shall submit a statement, signed under penalty of
perjury, indicating whether he desires to stipulate to dismissal of this action on any
terms and/or conditions set forth in Defendant=s response; and
2. If Defendants are not willing to stipulate to dismissal of this action, Plaintiff shall
file his response to any objections raised by Defendants.
25 / / /
Defendants’ position on costs should note the recent Ninth Circuit ruling which found an abuse of discretion where
costs were awarded against a pro se inmate plaintiff. See Draper v. Rosario, --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 4651407, *12-13
(9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2016).
Plaintiff’s duty to file an opposition to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment
2 is stayed pending resolution of his motion for voluntary dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 7, 2016
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?