Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01313/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01313-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA GRIGGS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

BRUCE McPHERSON, et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV- F-05-1313 AWI SMS

ORDER CLOSING THE CASE

DUE TO VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL

On September 19 and September 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal

without prejudice. Both notices are captioned stipulations for voluntary dismissal and are signed

by Plaintiff and remaining Defendant Wayne Stumpfter. Although not stated in the notices, the

notices are made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing a

notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or

of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs, or (ii) by filing a

stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action.

Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the 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.

Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily after service of an answer by

filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties, although an oral stipulation in

open court will also suffice. Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Asso., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191

(9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). “Caselaw concerning

stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a) (1) (ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of

Case 1:05-cv-01313-AWI -SMS Document 38 Filed 09/25/06 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

dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval.” In re Wolf, 842 F.2d

464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984)

Further, In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:

Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his

action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary

judgment. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing

Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir.

1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of

dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary

judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id.

The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his

claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-

10 (9th Cir. 1993). The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court

automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of

the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is

ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence another action for

the same cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing McKenzie v. DavenportHarris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a dismissal

leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id.

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).

Although Defendant Stumpfter filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, no answer to

Plaintiff’s complaint and no motion for summary judgment have been filed in this case and it

appears that no such answer or summary judgment motion have been served. Also, Defendant

Sumpfter has also signed the stipulation for voluntary dismissal. Accordingly, this case has

terminated under Rule 41(a)(1). See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692; Wolf, 842 F.2d at 466.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light

of the Rule 41(a)(1) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01313-AWI -SMS Document 38 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2