George v. Voong et al

Filing 9

ORDER CLOSING CASE Due to Plaintiff's Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/4/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RICHARD EARL GEORGE,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01514-SKO (PC)

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.

ORDER CLOSING CASE DUE TO
PLAINTIFF’S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

12
VOONG, et al.,

(Doc. 8)

13
Defendants.
14
15
16

Plaintiff, Richard Earl George, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

17

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a

18

request for dismissal of this action. (Doc. 13.) Although not stated in Plaintiff’s request, the

19

Court construes the request as one made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i).

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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
1

1

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.

2
3
4

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).

5

Neither answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint, nor motions for summary judgment have been

6

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

7

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

8

41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light

9
10

of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1)(i) request for dismissal without prejudice.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 4, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

.