Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01574/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01574-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YIWU LI,

Petitioner,

v.

JEH JOHNSON, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01574-SAB-HC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE

(ECF No. 13)

Petitioner, represented by counsel, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 3). Petitioner challenges his ongoing detention by U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), arguing that he has been detained past the sixmonth presumptively reasonable period for removal and that his removal is not significantly 

likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. Petitioner and Respondents have consented 

to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 6, 10).

On January 29, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss this action as 

Petitioner has been released on an order of supervision. (ECF No. 13). Pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without 

a court order by filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.”

Voluntary dismissal under this rule requires no action on the part of the court and divests the 

court of jurisdiction upon the filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal. See United States v. 475 

Case 1:15-cv-01574-SAB Document 14 Filed 02/01/16 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

Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing consequences of voluntary

dismissals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)).

In this case, the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal was effective upon filing and 

without a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). For the sake of 

clarity, in light of the joint stipulation of dismissal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of 

the Court is DIRECTED to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01574-SAB Document 14 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 2