Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00099/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00099-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE AUGUSTINE MAYORGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESLICK, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00099-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

ADVISE REGARDING DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION 

(Docs. 37, 38, 39)

Plaintiff, Jose Augustine Mayorga, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 23, 2014. On 

January 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal seeking to dismiss this action which is 

construed as an attempt to voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure (ARule 41@). (Doc. 37.) On January 20, 2016, an order issued directing the 

parties to advise whether they stipulate to dismissal of this action in accordance with Rule 41. 

(Doc. 38.) On January 25, 2016, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition indicating that 

they do not oppose dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i); alternatively Defendants “stipulate to 

dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2)” and “reserve their right to 

seek payment of all fees, costs and expenses incurred in this action if Plaintiff subsequently refiles a complaint against Defendants based on or including the same claims raised in this action.” 

(Doc. 39.) 

///

Case 1:14-cv-00099-LJO-SKO Document 40 Filed 01/27/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty-five (25) days of the date of 

service of this order Plaintiff shall submit a statement, signed under penalty of perjury, indicating 

whether he desires to dismiss this action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), or whether he desires to 

stipulate to dismissal of this action under Rule 41(a)(2) on the terms set forth in Defendant=s 

statement of non-opposition (Doc. 39). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00099-LJO-SKO Document 40 Filed 01/27/16 Page 2 of 2