(PC) Martin v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

E.D. California

(PC) Martin v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

DecidedJune 10, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-00822

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Martin v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation ((PC) Martin v. California Department of Corrections & 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

(PC) Martin v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS M. MARTIN, No. 1:23-cv-00822-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE PURSUANT TO PARTIES’ 13 v. STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DISMISSAL CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, 15 et al., (ECF No. 41) 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. 19 On June 6, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant 20 to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as the case has been resolved in its 21 entirety. (ECF No. 41.) 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 | SO ORDERED. A (re 8 | Dated: _ June 10, 2024 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS M. MARTIN, No. 1:23-cv-00822-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE PURSUANT TO PARTIES’ 13 v. STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DISMISSAL CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, 15 et al., (ECF No. 41) 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. 19 On June 6, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant 20 to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as the case has been resolved in its 21 entirety. (ECF No. 41.) 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 | SO ORDERED. A (re 8 | Dated: _ June 10, 2024 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Martin v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-martin-v-california-department-of-corrections-rehabilitation-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack