Taylor et al v. Kramer, et al

Filing 60

ORDER DISMISSING Action In Its Entirety without Prejudice Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) Notice of Dismissal 59 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/24/15. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JASON TAYLOR, 7 8 1:14-cv-00939-AWI-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUAN TO RULE 41(a)(1) NOTICE OF DISMISSAL vs. 9 NORM KRAMER, et al., 10 Defendants. (Doc. No. 59) 11 12 Jason Taylor (APlaintiff@) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 13 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on June 18, 14 2014. (Doc. 1.) 15 On April 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal of this action without prejudice. 16 (Doc. 6.) The court construes Plaintiff’s notice as being brought pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). In 17 Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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, 609-10 (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. Davenport-Harris 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. 28 1 1 Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No defendant has filed an 2 answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 3 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this case has terminated. 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that his action is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) and the Clerk shall CLOSE this case. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 24, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?