Kitchen v. Rouch et al

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/19/2012. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS KITCHEN, 1:10-cv-00663-GSA-PC 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 41 (Doc. 12.) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PATRICIA ROUCH, et al., 15 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE FILE 16 Defendants. / 17 18 Plaintiff Thomas Kitchen (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 20 Complaint commencing this action on April 15, 2010. (Doc. 1.) On April 26, 2010, plaintiff 21 consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other 22 parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the 23 Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all 24 proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local 25 Rule Appendix A(k)(3). 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 2 On March 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. (Doc. 12.) 3 In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained: 4 12 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id. The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 60910 (9th Cir. 1993). The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence another action for the same cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing McKenzie v. DavenportHarris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a dismissal leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id. 13 Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No defendant has filed an answer 14 or motion for summary judgment in this action. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion shall be granted. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. 17 Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this action, filed on March 15, 2012, is GRANTED; 18 2. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice; and 19 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the file in this case and adjust the 20 docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij March 19, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?