Warren v. Management and Training Corporation (MTC) et al
ORDER re Plaintiff's 16 Notice of Dismissal; dismissing case without prejudice under Rule 41 and to close case signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/13/2016. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
(ECF No. 16.)
MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING
CORPORATION, et al.,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, UNDER RULE 41
ORDER FOR CLERK CLOSE CASE
Christopher Warren (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed
the Complaint commencing this action on June 20, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this case. (ECF No.
16.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1). In
Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:
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
Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). In this case, no other party
except Plaintiff has made an appearance in this action.
dismissal is effective, and this case is dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Therefore, Plaintiff’s notice of
Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this action, filed on October 11,
2016, is construed as a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1);
Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is effective as of the date it was filed;
This case is dismissed, without prejudice, under Rule 41(a)(1);
All pending motions are denied as moot; and
The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
October 13, 2016
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
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?