(PC) Lewis v. Gipson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS, Case No. 1:20cv574-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF STIPULATION 13 v. (Doc. No. 144) 14 CONNNIE GIPSON, ET. AL., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of stipulation. (Doc. No. 144). Plaintiff states 18 the parties stipulate to various facts and/or claims concerning this action. (Id. at 1-2) (stating 19 parties agree government insurance claim was timely filed, stipulation for certain witnesses to 20 appear). Significantly, only Plaintiff’s signature is on the stipulation. (See generally Id. at 5). 21 Local Rule 143 requires that a stipulation must be “in writing, signed by all attorneys or 22 pro se parties who have appeared in the action and are affected by the stipulation . . . .” L.R. 23 143(a)(1). “Stipulations not in conformity with these requirement will not be recognized unless 24 necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” (Id.); see also Johnson v. Oropeza, Case No. 2:14-1369- 25 WBS-DAD, 2015 WL 5255410 *3, n. 2 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (recognizing a stipulation must be 26 signed by both parties). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires a party, or the 27 attorney if represented by counsel, to sign all pleadings. Plaintiff provides no reason in his notice 28 why manifest injustice will result if the Court does not accept the stipulation that is not signed by 1 | any other party. 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiff's notice of stipulation (Doc. No. 144) and 4 | terminate any associated pending motion. 5 ° | Dated: _ March 22, 2022 law □□□ foareA Zacks 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28