Opinion
1:21-cv-01190-AWI-BAK (SKO) (PC)
09-13-2022
SAMUEL CAMPOSECO, Plaintiff, v. ANDY GARCIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE CASE
Plaintiff Samuel Camposeco is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint has not been screened or served. No defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, nor has any attorney appeared on behalf of a defendant.
Plaintiff has filed a pleading captioned as “Motion to Dismiss Suit Based on Stipulations by Both Parties.” (ECF No. 8.) The Court construes this pleading as a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under this rule, “. . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a).
The pleading is not a stipulation nor is a stipulation attached to it. The pleading is signed only by Plaintiff. Instead, Plaintiff states that he and defendants' counsel “have conferred in good faith, discussed potential resolutions of the matter and have agreed to progressively discuss ‘ancillary services' that may be afforded to the petitioner. . . . (ECF No. 8 at 2.) Even though Plaintiff and counsel for prospective defendants have reached an agreement on “progressive discussions,” the settlement negotiations off the record do not constitute a stipulation or settlement agreement.
Plaintiff moves for dismissal of this action, and the Court construes the motion as a request for dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff states:
Hence, as a gesture of good faith, Mr. Camposeco hereby relinquishes this matter and submits for a dismissal of this cause. . . . Mr. Camposeco understands the consequences of this dismissal. Mr. Camposeco also acknowledges that if his “progressive discussions” do not render a resolution, this matter will remain dismissed.
(Id.) A motion to dismiss is unnecessary, however. Upon the filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal under 41(a)(1)(A)(i), no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Comm. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999). In this case, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading, and Plaintiff's filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice resolves Plaintiff's claims.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.