Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986-21/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

VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00986-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS

NORTHCUTT, MARTIN, CAVINESS,

TRUJILLO, TRUITT AND FAMBROUGH

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 100.)

 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Valentine E. Underwood (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the

complaint on July 17, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the original complaint,

against defendants Northcutt and Martin for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment; and

against defendants Northcutt, Martin, Caviness, Lantz, Trujillo, Truitt, and Fambrough

("Defendants") for use of excessive force physical force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1

On December 7, 2010, Defendants filed a Statement of Fact of Death suggesting the death

of defendant Seth Lantz. (Doc. 72.) On June 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss

defendant Seth Lantz from this action. (Doc. 100.) 

All other claims and defendants were dismissed by the Court on October 21, 2009, based on Plaintiff’s

1

failure to state a claim. (Doc. 31.)

1

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 101 Filed 06/15/11 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

II. RULE 41

Plaintiff requests that defendant Lantz be dismissed from this action in light of

Defendants’ statement suggesting defendant Lantz’s death. Plaintiff asserts that he does not wish

to file a motion under Rule 25 to substitute defendant Lantz’s successors in place of defendant

Lantz in this action. (Doc. 100.) Under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "the

plaintiff may dismiss an action [against a defendant] without a court order by filing a notice of

dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment;

or a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1)(A). In this case, defendants Fambrough, Lantz, Northcutt, Truit, and Trujillo filed an

answer to the complaint on March 17, 2010, and defendants Martin and Caviness filed an answer

to the complaint on April 8, 2011. (Docs. 40, 90.) Therefore, before plaintiff can dismiss

defendant Lantz from this action pursuant to Rule 41, defendants Northcutt, Martin, Caviness,

Trujillo, Truitt, and Fambrough must consent in writing to the dismissal. These defendants shall

be required to respond in writing to plaintiff's motion to dismiss.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of service of

this order, defendants Northcutt, Martin, Caviness, Trujillo, Truitt, and Fambrough shall respond

in writing to plaintiff's motion to dismiss of June 10, 2011, indicating whether they consent to the

dismissal of defendant Seth Lantz, or whether they have any reason to oppose the dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 14, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 101 Filed 06/15/11 Page 2 of 2