Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06547/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06547-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enrique Acosta Delgado
Petitioner
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Respondent

Document Text:

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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

QUIN DENVIR, Bar #49374

Federal Defender

CAROLYN M. WIGGIN, Bar #182732

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorneys for Petitioner

ENRIQUE ACOSTA DELGADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE ACOSTA DELGADO,

Petitioner,

v.

Immigration and Naturalization

Service,

Respondents.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. Civ. F 99-6547 AWI LJO

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING

CASE

Petitioner Enrique Acosta Delgado’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus challenges his indefinite detention by the Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE), formerly the

Immigration and Naturalization Service. Mr. Delgado is no longer

being detained by the BICE, and thus Petitioner and Respondent,

through their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree

that, because Petitioner is no longer being detained by Respondent,

this petition should be dismissed as moot. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Section 636(c), the parties consent to the magistrate judge

Case 1:99-cv-06547-AWI-LJO Document 51 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 3
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

entering a final order dismissing this case. 

Counsel for Respondent, Attorney Gregory G. Mack, has

authorized the undersigned to sign this stipulation electronically

on his behalf.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 6, 2005

/s/ Gregory D. Mack 

GREGORY D. MACK

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division

Office of Immigration

Litigation

Attorney for Respondents

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE

Dated: December 6, 2005

QUIN DENVIR

Federal Defender

/s/ Carolyn M. Wiggin 

 

CAROLYN M. WIGGIN

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for Petitioner

ENRIQUE ACOSTA DELGADO

_____________________________________

ORDER

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) thus allows the parties to dismiss an action

Case 1:99-cv-06547-AWI-LJO Document 51 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 3
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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 3

voluntarily, after service of an answer, by filing a written

stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties who have

appeared, 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). Once the stipulation between the parties who have

appeared is properly filed or made in open court, no order of the

court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

41(a)(1)(ii); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4. Because Petitioner has

filed a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice as to all parties

under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) that is signed by all parties who have made

an appearance, this case has terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

41(a)(1)(ii); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d at 466; Gardiner, 747 F.2d at

1189; see also Gambale, 377 F.3d at 139; Commercial Space Mgmt, 193

F.3d at 1077; cf. Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is

DIRECTED to close this case in light of Petitioner’s filed and

properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) Stipulation For Dismissal With

Prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06547-AWI-LJO Document 51 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 3