Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06311/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06311-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MARTINEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ANTONIA CHALMERS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV-F-02-6311 AWI LJO P

ORDER REGARDING

PARTIES’ STIPULATION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK

OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS

ACTION

On October 25, 2006, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with

prejudice. The stipulation is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii). 

The notice is signed by the parties who have appeared in this case.

Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing

a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an

answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs, or (ii)

by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in

the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the

dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an

adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed

in any court of the United States or of any state an action based on or

including the same claim.

Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) thus allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after service of an

answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties who have

appeared, although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. Carter v. Beverly Hills

Sav. & Loan Asso., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,

Case 1:02-cv-06311-AWI-LJO Document 46 Filed 10/30/06 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

1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is

properly filed or made in open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate

dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(ii); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4; see also In re Wolf, 842

F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir.

1984);. “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims,

through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal “automatically terminates the action as to

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

London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Because a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice has been filed and

signed by all parties who have made an appearance, as required by Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), this case

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

F.2d at 1189; see also Gambale, 377 F.3d at 139; Commercial Space Mgmt, 193 F.3d at

1077; cf. Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. 

Therefore, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case in light of the filed

and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06311-AWI-LJO Document 46 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2