Kinard v. Greenville Police Department et al
ORDER denying 68 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 68 Motion to Strike. The Clerk of Court is instructed to restore Defendant American Services to the docket as a defendant. The Court orders that Plaintiff shall have until June 8, 2012, to file an amended stipulation. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 5/31/12.(gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Ira Milton Kinard,
City of Greenville; Officers
and or Former Officers C.B.
Mills, Matthew Scott Jowers,
Jeremiah Milliman, and American
C/A No. 6:10–3246-TMC
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Defendants Officer C.B. Mills (“Mills”) and
Officer Jeremiah Milliman’s (“Milliman’s”) Motion to Strike or Amend the Plaintiff’s
Stipulation of Dismissal.
(Dkt. # 68).
Defendant American Services, Inc. (“American
Services”), filed a response to the motion in which it states it agrees that Defendant Mills
should be dismissed in his capacity as an employee of American Services. (Dkt. # 70).
Plaintiff Ira Kinard has not filed any response to the motion and the time for responding has
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff filed a stipulation of
dismissal with prejudice as to Defendant American Services, Inc. (“American Services”).
(Dkt. # 65). However, Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) requires a stipulation of dismissal to be signed by all
parties who have appeared in the action. Defendants Mills and Milliman did not sign the
stipulation. In their motion, Mills and Milliman request that the stipulation be removed from
the docket or, alternatively, amended to include Mills. American Services agrees that the
stipulation should be amended to include Mills.1
In its response, American Services provided a copy of the release and settlement
agreement entered into by Plaintiff and American Services. (Dkt. # 70 Attach. #1). The
release also provides for a release of American Services employees. The Court is inclined
Rule 41(a)(1) provides that a plaintiff may dismiss an action after an answer has
been filed without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who
However, the stipulation which has been filed in this action does not
include all the parties’ signatures.
Accordingly, the stipulation is ineffective as to the
dismissal of even American Services. In the event that all parties to this case indeed agree
that all claims against American Services and Mills should be dismissed with prejudice, the
Court will give the parties an opportunity to file an amended stipulation. If no supplement is
filed, the Court will construe the currently filed stipulation as a motion to dismiss with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and will dismiss with prejudice only the claims against
Defendants American Services, after which Mills may then file a motion to dismiss the
claims against him.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant Mills and Milliman’s Motion Strike or Amend the
Plaintiff’s Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. # 68) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to
restore Defendant American Services to the docket as a defendant. Further, the Court
ORDERS that Plaintiff shall have until June 8, 2012, to file an amended stipulation signed
by all the parties and indicating his intention to include Defendant Mills, if appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 31, 2012
to agree that it appears Mills should also be dismissed.
Even though Rule 41 refers to the dismissal of an action, courts have construed
this rule as permitting the dismissal of all claims against certain defendants in a case with
more than one defendant. See, e.g., Redding v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., Civ. No.
DKC11–3141, 2012 WL 1268327 (D.Md. Apr.13, 2012) (citing cases). See also 9 Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2362, at 409–10.
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?