Allen v. Ahlin, et al.

Filing 14

ORDER CLOSING CASE Due to Plaintiff's Voluntary Dismissal signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/1/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE N. ALLEN,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:15-cv-00989-JLT (PC)
ORDER CLOSING THE CASE DUE
PLAINITFF’S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

v.
(Doc. 13)

14
15

AHLIN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On May 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. (Doc. 13.)

18

Although not stated in Plaintiff’s request, the Court construes it as one made pursuant to Federal

19

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i).

20

In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:

21

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

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

1
2
3
4

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.
Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).
Neither answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint, nor motions for summary judgment have been

5

filed in this case and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been

6

served. Because Plaintiff has exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss the complaint under Rule

7

41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

8
9

Therefore, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case in light of Plaintiff’s
Rule 41(a)(1)(i) requested dismissal.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 1, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2