Harper v. Blazo, 1:17-cv-01717-LJO-EPG (PC). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190918748
Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARILY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (ECF NO. 73) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Jason Harper ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 16, 2019, the parties filed a document titled "Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii))." (ECF No. 73). The document states that the parties "have resolved this case
Summary: ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARILY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (ECF NO. 73) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Jason Harper ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 16, 2019, the parties filed a document titled "Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii))." (ECF No. 73). The document states that the parties "have resolved this case i..
More
ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARILY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
(ECF NO. 73)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Jason Harper ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 16, 2019, the parties filed a document titled "Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii))." (ECF No. 73). The document states that the parties "have resolved this case in its entirety," and that they "stipulate to a dismissal of this action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)." (Id. at 1). However, Plaintiff included the language "Without Prejudice/UCC 1308" with his signature. (Id. at 2).
Given the language Plaintiff included with his signature, it is unclear if Plaintiff intended to voluntarily dismiss this case with prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties have twenty-one days from the date of service of this order to re-file the stipulation without the additional language Plaintiff included with his signature. If Plaintiff will not agree to sign an updated stipulation without the additional language, each party may instead file a brief regarding the effect of the additional language on the stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
