Silva v. Worth et al

Filing 68

ORDER on Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice and Directing Clerk of the Court to Close Case signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/25/2019. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ANTHONY SILVA,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
J. WORTH,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01131-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE, FED. R. CIV. P. 41
(Doc. 67)

Defendant.

CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE CASE

14
15

Plaintiff, Anthony Silva, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

16

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action proceeds solely against

17

Defendant J. Worth. On June 19, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with

18

prejudice of this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). Rule

19

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

20

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

21

oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Assoc., 884

22

F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986).

23

Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in

24

open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG,
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995).
Because the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice under

7
8

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that is signed by all parties who have made an appearance, this case has

9

terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d at 466; Gardiner, 747 F.2d

10

at 1189; see also Gambale, 377 F.3d at 139; Commercial Space Mgmt, 193 F.3d at 1077; cf.

11

Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light

12
13

of the filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation For Voluntary Dismissal With

14

Prejudice.

15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18

Dated:

June 25, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.