Underwood v. Knowles et al
Filing
101
ORDER for Defendants Northcutt, Martin, Caviness, Trujillo, Truitt and Fambrough to Respond to Plaintiff's 100 Motion to Dismiss within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 06/14/2011. Responses due by 7/18/2011.(Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:08-cv-00986-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS
NORTHCUTT, MARTIN, CAVINESS,
TRUJILLO, TRUITT AND FAMBROUGH
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
v.
M. KNOWLES, et al.,
15
Defendants.
(Doc. 100.)
/
16
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Valentine E. Underwood (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
19
forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the
20
complaint on July 17, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the original complaint,
21
against defendants Northcutt and Martin for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment; and
22
against defendants Northcutt, Martin, Caviness, Lantz, Trujillo, Truitt, and Fambrough
23
("Defendants") for use of excessive force physical force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1
24
On December 7, 2010, Defendants filed a Statement of Fact of Death suggesting the death
25
of defendant Seth Lantz. (Doc. 72.) On June 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss
26
defendant Seth Lantz from this action. (Doc. 100.)
27
1
28
All other claims and defendants were dismissed by the Court on October 21, 2009, based on Plaintiff’s
failure to state a claim. (Doc. 31.)
1
1
II.
2
RULE 41
Plaintiff requests that defendant Lantz be dismissed from this action in light of
3
Defendants’ statement suggesting defendant Lantz’s death. Plaintiff asserts that he does not wish
4
to file a motion under Rule 25 to substitute defendant Lantz’s successors in place of defendant
5
Lantz in this action. (Doc. 100.) Under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "the
6
plaintiff may dismiss an action [against a defendant] without a court order by filing a notice of
7
dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment;
8
or a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P.
9
41(a)(1)(A). In this case, defendants Fambrough, Lantz, Northcutt, Truit, and Trujillo filed an
10
answer to the complaint on March 17, 2010, and defendants Martin and Caviness filed an answer
11
to the complaint on April 8, 2011. (Docs. 40, 90.) Therefore, before plaintiff can dismiss
12
defendant Lantz from this action pursuant to Rule 41, defendants Northcutt, Martin, Caviness,
13
Trujillo, Truitt, and Fambrough must consent in writing to the dismissal. These defendants shall
14
be required to respond in writing to plaintiff's motion to dismiss.
15
III.
16
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of service of
17
this order, defendants Northcutt, Martin, Caviness, Trujillo, Truitt, and Fambrough shall respond
18
in writing to plaintiff's motion to dismiss of June 10, 2011, indicating whether they consent to the
19
dismissal of defendant Seth Lantz, or whether they have any reason to oppose the dismissal.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated:
6i0kij
June 14, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
