Scott Williams v. Linda Sanders et al

Filing 5

ORDER RE: VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41 by Judge George H. King: (see document image for specifics). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice and this matter shall be administratively closed. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ad)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SCOTT WILLIAMS,
v.

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

LINDA SANDERS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. EDCV 13-803-UA (OP)
ORDER RE: VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R.
CIV. P. 41

16
17

I.

18

PROCEEDINGS

19

On April 30, 2013, Scott Williams (“Plaintiff”) lodged for filing what

20 purported to be a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
21 Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971)
22 (“Complaint”), along with an in forma pauperis application in order to proceed
23 without payment of the full filing fee and a motion for a temporary restraining
24 order/preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 1.) Because Plaintiff requested leave to
25 proceed in forma pauperis, the Court screened the Complaint for the purpose of
26 determining whether the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on
27
28
1

1 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
2 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A.
3

On May 9, 2013, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why the

4 in forma pauperis application should not be denied. (ECF No. 2.) Specifically, the
5 Court found that to the extent Plaintiff was alleging constitutional claims against
6 the Federal Bureau of Prisons and FCI Terminal Island, the Complaint was subject
7 to dismissal based on sovereign immunity. The Court further found that the
8 Complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim
9 based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. (Id. at 4-7.) The Court
10 gave Plaintiff until June 14, 2013, to show cause why his in forma pauperis
11 application should not be denied. Plaintiff was instructed that if he wished to
12 pursue this action, he had until June 14, 2013, to file an amended Complaint,
13 attempting to cure the defects in the Complaint. Finally, the Court admonished
14 Plaintiff that the “[f]ailure to comply with these requirements may result in a
15 recommendation that the in forma pauperis application be denied for failure to
16 state a claim on which relief may be granted. The failure to properly respond to
17 this OSC will result in a recommendation that the in forma pauperis application be
18 denied for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order.” (Id. at
19 7, 8.)
20

On July 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court in which he requested

21 appointment of counsel. If his request for appointment of counsel was to be
22 denied, Plaintiff requested in the alternative a dismissal of the current action
23 without prejudice. (ECF No. 3.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for
24 appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 4.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s alternative
25 request in his letter as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41 of the
26 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
27 / / /
28 / / /
2

1

II.

2

DISCUSSION

3

Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff may

4 dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the
5 opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed.
6 R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without
7 prejudice. Id. However, if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal-or
8 state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal
9 operates as an adjudication on the merits. Id.
10

In his letter, Plaintiff stated that if his request for appointment of counsel

11 was denied, he requested a dismissal of the current action without prejudice. (ECF
12 No. 3.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. (ECF No.
13 4.) Given that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application was never granted and that
14 the Complaint was never formally filed, neither an answer nor a motion for
15 summary judgment have been filed by any Defendant. As a result, the Court finds
16 that the dismissal of this action without prejudice and the administrative closure of
17 this matter are warranted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).
III.
18
19

ORDER

20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without

21 prejudice and this matter shall be administratively closed.
22
23 DATED: 8/5 , 2013
24
25

HONORABLE GEORGE H. KING
Chief United States District Judge

Presented by:

26
27

HONORABLE OSWALD PARADA
28 United States Magistrate Judge
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4