Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01008/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01008-12/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD THORPE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1008 FCD EFB P

vs.

SNOW, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have submitted a stipulation for voluntary dismissal. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii). However, there is a discrepancy between the language used in the

stipulation and the language used in the caption and the proposed order as to whether the

dismissal is with, or without prejudice. Accordingly, a corrected stipulation and order must be

submitted to resolve the discrepancy. Moreover, the revised stipulation and order shall correct

the signature line on the order to remove Magistrate Judge Nowinski and identify the assigned

District Judge.

The relevant portion of Rule 41 states that an action may voluntarily dismissed “by filing

a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1)(ii). Furthermore, “Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the

Case 2:05-cv-01008-FCD-EFB Document 41 Filed 03/08/07 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

2

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.” Id. Here, the caption of the

stipulation says, “Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal With Out [sic] Prejudice.” However, the

body of the stipulation says that the action “shall be dismissed with prejudice as to all

Defendants.” The typewritten text in the proposed order clause provided for dismissal with

prejudice. However, that language was lined out and the words “without prejudice” were

handwritten above it. There is also a handwritten addition stating that CDCR will waive costs

and attorney’s fees. Below that text are the signatures of plaintiff and of counsel for defendants. 

While it appears that counsel for defendants changed the caption based on an agreement to

dismiss without prejudice, and simply neglected to change the language of the actual stipulation,

the court is not inclined to infer such intent with respect to what appears to be a settlement

agreement. The parties must clarify their intent.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that within 20 days of the date of this order, the parties

shall submit for the signature of the district judge assigned to this matter a corrected stipulation

that makes clear whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.

Dated: March 8, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01008-FCD-EFB Document 41 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2