Gradford v. Stanislaus County Sheriffs Department et al

Filing 32

ORDER re Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and ORDER Directing Clerk to Close File signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/30/2018. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

1:17-cv-00414-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
(ECF No. 31.)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE
FILE

Defendants.

17
18

William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed the

20

Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On August 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed the First

21

Amended Complaint as a matter of course. (ECF No. 26.)

22

On April 3, 2018, the court screened the First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §

23

1915 and issued a screening order, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with

24

leave to amend. (ECF No. 28.) On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended

25

Complaint. (ECF No. 29.)

26

On August 21, 2018, the court issued a screening order dismissing the Second Amended

27

Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 30.) On August 28, 2018,

28

Plaintiff filed a request for voluntary dismissal of this case under rule 41, without prejudice.
1

1

(ECF No. 31.) Therein, Plaintiff notifies the court that he has no objections to the dismissal of

2

this case. The court construes Plaintiff’s request as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule

3

41.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff has a right to voluntarily dismiss this case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. 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, 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
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.

15

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No defendant has filed an answer

16

or motion for summary judgment in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is

17

effective, and this case shall be closed.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal is effective as of the date it was filed;

20

2.

This case is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice; and

21

3.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the file in this case and adjust the

22

docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 30, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2