Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02276/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02276-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The Court dismissed the remaining Defendants and Counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a) (Doc. #14). 

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lawrence L. Peterson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County, et al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2276-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff, Lawrence L. Peterson, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Maricopa

County, Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, and various named employees of the Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by (1) overcrowded and

unsafe conditions; (2) denial of outside recreational activities; (3) an inadequate and tainted

diet; (4) deliberate indifference to his medical needs; (5) unsanitary conditions; and

(6) retaliation (Doc. #13).1

 Plaintiff now seeks to dismiss his action because he was denied

an extension of time, he has no experience in the law, he has been unable to retain counsel,

he cannot afford to make copies and mail materials to the Court, and he is being returned to

Maricopa County custody (Doc. #36). Defendants do not oppose the motion (Doc. #38). 

Although the parties have not entered into a signed stipulation, Defendants

specifically stated that they do not oppose the dismissal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a) (providing

that “an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff . . . by filing a stipulation of dismissal

Case 2:04-cv-02276-SMM-LOA Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

signed by all parties who have appeared in the action”). Accordingly, because the parties

agree to a dismissal of the instant action, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 36) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s action is dismissed. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal

accordingly.

DATED this 19th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02276-SMM-LOA Document 42 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 2