Case 2:23-cv-01657-MHH Document 56 Filed 04/24/24 Page 1 of 3 FILED

2024 Apr-24 AM 09:39

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

AUDREY MARIE DOTSON, in her }

personal and in her capacity as the }
personal representative of the Estate }
of Brandon Clay Dotson, et al., }
}
Plaintiffs, }
}
v. } Case No.: 2:23-cv-01657-MHH
}
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF }
CORRECTIONS, et al., }
}
Defendants }

DISMISSAL ORDER

Plaintiffs Audrey Marie Dotson and Audrey South and defendants Alabama

Department of Corrections; John Q. Hamm; Greg Lovelace; Karen Williams; CHS

AL, LLC; YESCARE Medical Staff; Alabama Department of Forensics Sciences;

and Angelo Della Manna—the remaining defendants in this action—have filed a

joint stipulation of dismissal. (Doc. 55). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)

provides that a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action in one of two ways. First,

under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), “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)(1)(A). Second, “an action may
 Case 2:23-cv-01657-MHH Document 56 Filed 04/24/24 Page 2 of 3

be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court

considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

Here, the parties’ joint stipulation does not comply with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

because the stipulation is not signed by all the parties who, over the course of this

action, have appeared. See City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P.,

82 F.4th 1031 (11th Cir. 2023) (holding that voluntary dismissal of claims through

joint stipulations that do not contain the signatures of all the parties who have

appeared are ineffective under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)).1 Accordingly, pursuant to

Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent authority to

provide for the efficient disposition of litigation, the Court construes Doc. 55 as a

request for voluntarily dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). See, e.g.,

Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a court “has

the inherent ability to dismiss a claim in light of its authority to enforce its orders

and provide for the efficient disposition of litigation”).

The Court grants the plaintiffs’ request and dismisses this action without

prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. The Court asks

the Clerk to please term Doc. 2 and to close this file.

1
Per City of Jacksonville, to make the stipulation effective under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the UAB
defendants would have to sign the stipulation.
2
 Case 2:23-cv-01657-MHH Document 56 Filed 04/24/24 Page 3 of 3

DONE and ORDERED this April 24, 2024.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE