Robinson v. Kitt
ORDER Re Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Directing Clerk to Close File 7 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/4/17: Case voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a). (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 1:17-cv-00577-DAD-GSA (PC)
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL, DIRECTING
CLERK TO CLOSE FILE
(Doc. No. 7)
Plaintiff Samuel Robinson a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on April 24,
2017. (Doc. No. 1.) In his complaint, plaintiff names one defendant, Dr. Kitt, and alleges that he
received inadequate medical care arising from surgery performed by Dr. Kitt on plaintiff for nasal
On July 5, 2017, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to either (i) show cause why
this case should not be dismissed as erroneously submitted to this court, or (ii) file a “Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal Under Rule 41,” within twenty-one days. (Doc. No. 6.) In the order, the
court advised plaintiff of his right to voluntarily dismiss this action under Rule 41(a)(1). (Id. at 2,
n.2.) On July 20, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice with the court stating that he wishes to voluntarily
dismiss this case “according to court order.” (Doc. No. 7.) The court construes plaintiff’s notice
as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1). The Ninth Circuit has 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 brought.
Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (emphasis and footnote omitted).
No defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Therefore,
plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is effective as of the date it was filed, and this case will be closed
pursuant to the filing of the notice of dismissal.
1. Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is effective as of the date it was filed;
2. This action is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and adjust the docket to reflect
voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 4, 2017
UNITED STATES 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?