Green v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

E.D. California

Green v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

DecidedJanuary 2, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-01108

StatusUnknown

This text of Green v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Green v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Green v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 LORENZO GREEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-01108-JLT-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE CALIFORNIA 13 v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, THE STATE OF 14 THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA, AND WARDEN STEVE CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, SMITH AS PARTIES IN THIS ACTION 15 et al., (ECF No. 16) 16 Defendants.

17 18 On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants California Department of Corrections 19 and Rehabilitation (CDCR), D. Contreras, J. Rodrigues, S. McHoul, State of California, Steve 20 Smith, W. Velasquez, and W. Whitley, filed a stipulated notice of dismissal of Defendants 21 CDCR and State of California with prejudice, and Defendant Steve Smith without prejudice 22 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (ECF No. 16.) The parties stipulate 23 that each party shall bear its own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. (Id.) 24 Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all 25 of the defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 26 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The 27 plaintiff may dismiss either some or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”)). 1 The Court notes that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) provides that a “plaintiff may dismiss an action 2 | without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have 3 | appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Despite the instant stipulated dismissal under Rule 4 | 41(a)(1)(A)G, no Defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. 5 | Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)() a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (4) a 6 | notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary 7 | judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(). 8 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendants CDCR, State 9 | of California, and Warden Steve Smith, as defendants in this action. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 12 | Dated: _January 2, 2024 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 LORENZO GREEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-01108-JLT-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE CALIFORNIA 13 v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, THE STATE OF 14 THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA, AND WARDEN STEVE CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, SMITH AS PARTIES IN THIS ACTION 15 et al., (ECF No. 16) 16 Defendants.

17 18 On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants California Department of Corrections 19 and Rehabilitation (CDCR), D. Contreras, J. Rodrigues, S. McHoul, State of California, Steve 20 Smith, W. Velasquez, and W. Whitley, filed a stipulated notice of dismissal of Defendants 21 CDCR and State of California with prejudice, and Defendant Steve Smith without prejudice 22 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (ECF No. 16.) The parties stipulate 23 that each party shall bear its own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. (Id.) 24 Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all 25 of the defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 26 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The 27 plaintiff may dismiss either some or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”)). 1 The Court notes that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) provides that a “plaintiff may dismiss an action 2 | without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have 3 | appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Despite the instant stipulated dismissal under Rule 4 | 41(a)(1)(A)G, no Defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. 5 | Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)() a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (4) a 6 | notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary 7 | judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(). 8 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendants CDCR, State 9 | of California, and Warden Steve Smith, as defendants in this action. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 12 | Dated: _January 2, 2024 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Green v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-california-department-of-corrections-and-rehabilitation-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack