Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_04-cv-00605/USCOURTS-alsd-2_04-cv-00605-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1 Although the Stipulation relies on Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), that provision is not available

here. That rule allows a party to take a voluntary dismissal without order of the Court only “by

filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action.” Id.

Given that the Stipulation was not signed by counsel for the nine other defendants who have

appeared in this case, it cannot satisfy this requirement. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MOLLIE HOSEA, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 04-0605-WS-C

 )

JESSE LANGLEY, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal (doc. 106) filed by

plaintiffs and defendants William Goodwin and Nedra Goodwin. This filing is signed only by

counsel for plaintiffs and the Goodwins, and does not reflect whether the other parties to this

action consent to the contemplated dismissal. Nonetheless, the Court has been informed that

counsel for the other named defendants are aware of this Stipulation, and that they have no

objection to it.

The proper authority for the contemplated dismissal of the Goodwins is Rule 41(a)(2),

Fed.R.Civ.P.1

 That rule authorizes the Court to dismiss a claim at the claimant’s instance “upon

order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” Id. The

Court’s understanding is that the other defendants have no objection to the dismissal of

plaintiffs’ claims against the Goodwins. Moreover, inasmuch as there are no asserted claims

running between the Goodwins and any other defendant in this action, it is evident that granting

the requested dismissal would neither prejudice any remaining defendant nor prevent complete

relief from being afforded to the remaining parties in this action.

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against the

Case 2:04-cv-00605-WS-C Document 107 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Goodwins is warranted and appropriate, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. Accordingly,

all of plaintiffs’ claims against defendants William Goodwin and Nedra Goodwin in this action

are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear her or his own costs. Mr. and Ms.

Goodwin are hereby terminated as parties to this action. Additionally, the Goodwins’ Motion

for Summary Judgment (doc. 73) is moot and all briefing deadlines pertaining to same are

terminated. This Order does not dismiss plaintiffs’ pending claims against any other defendant,

nor does it affect the briefing schedules associated with any other pending motions.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00605-WS-C Document 107 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 2