Petersen v. Tulare County Superior Court et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/18/15: This action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a). (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDI PETERSEN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:15 -cv-00209-TLN-SAB
ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1)

v.
TULARE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et
al.,

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET
TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

15
Defendants.

(ECF No. 10)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff filed this action on February 9, 2015. On March 3, 2015, the magistrate judge
issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissing the action for failure to state a
claim. On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.
“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(I), ‘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.’”
Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999)
(quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). “[A] dismissal under
Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no
action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to
do anything about it.” Id. at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other
responsive pleading.

28

1

1

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this

2 case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).
3
4 Dated: March 18, 2015
5
6
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2