Mike Boro v. Manuel Barraza, Jr., et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 30, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00095
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIKE BORO, No. 1:25-cv-00095-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE ACTION PURSUANT TO 13 v. PARTIES’ STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 14 MANUEL BARRAZA, JR., et al., (ECF No. 40) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On March 26, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice 20 pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as the case has been 21 resolved in its entirety. (ECF No. 40.) 22 Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides in pertinent part that, “the plaintiff may dismiss an action 23 without a court order by filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. 24 A voluntary stipulation to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) automatically 25 terminates the action without operation of a court order.” Black Rock City, LLC v. Pershing Cty. 26 Bd. of Comm’rs, 637 F. App’x 488 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing 27 Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999)). Here, Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants have signed 28 1 | and dated a stipulation to dismiss this action, and filed it with the Court. 2 In light of parties’ stipulation for voluntary dismissal, this action is terminated by operation 3 | of law without further order from the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Each party is to bear 4 | its own litigation costs and attorney’s fees. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all 5 | pending motions and deadlines and close this action. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Zl Se 3 | Dated: March 30, 2026 OF STANLEY A. BOONE 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28