Harrell v. Lemos

Full title: PETER T. HARRELL, Plaintiff, v. DARREL LEMOS, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Apr 30, 2012

CIV S-05-0420 GEB CMK (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012)

Opinion

PETER T. HARRELL, Plaintiff, v. DARREL LEMOS, et al., Defendants. No. CIV S-05-0420 GEB CMK United States District Court, E.D. California. April 30, 2012

          ORDER

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.

         Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action against several defendants. Pending before the court is defendants' bill of costs (Doc. 93).

         After an extended stay order, this action was terminated by plaintiff's unopposed, voluntary motion to dismiss. Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the dismissal of this action, without indicating their stipulation to dismissal was contingent on the court awarding fees or costs. The court accepted this motion as a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). The district court has discretion over any terms or conditions of a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). See Stevedoring Servs. of America v. Armilla Int'l, 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, no terms or conditions were requested, and the court did not set forth any terms in the dismissal acceptance order. As such, and given that there was no judgment entered against plaintiff as suggested on defendants' bill of costs, there is no basis for defendants' request at this time.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' bill of costs is denied.