Pelacos v. Mays et al
ORDER Closing Case due to Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 05/24/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MAYS, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01163-AWI-JLT (PC)
ORDER CLOSING CASE DUE TO
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT
Plaintiff, Estaban Pelacos, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request
for dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Doc. 11.) Although
not stated in Plaintiff’s request, 1 the Court construes it as one made pursuant Rule 41(a)(1)(i).
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
Plaintiff requested that this case be dismissed “under the voluntary dismissal rule” despite his lack of knowledge of
the exact rule because he has no access to the law library. (Doc. 11.)
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.
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
filed in this case; nor have any such answers or summary judgment motions been served since
Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for his pleading to be served on any of the defendants.
Because Plaintiff has exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss the complaint under Rule 41(a)(1),
this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk close this case in light of Plaintiff's
Rule 41(a)(1)(i) requested dismissal without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 24, 2017
SENIOR 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?