Harris v. Gipson et al

Filing 12

ORDER Directing Clerk of the Court to Terminate Defendants M. Magana, J. Bugarin, J. Carranza, L. Hurtado, E. Molina, C. Perez, T. Quillen, G. Sander, I.J. Alvarado and A. Belnap terminated, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/20/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEVONTE B. HARRIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00640-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE
COURT TO TERMINATE DEFENDANTS G.
SANDOR, E. MOLINA, J. BULGARIN, A.
BELNAP, T. QUILLEN, J. CARRANZA, I.
ALVARADO, L. HURTADO, C. PEREZ, AND M.
MAGANA AS PARTIES IN THIS ACTION
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)
(ECF No. 6)

Plaintiff Devonte B. Harris is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

20

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction;

21

therefore, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

22

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

On August 9, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure

24

to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 8.) On September 13, 2017, the Court granted

25

Plaintiff a thirty day extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.)

26

///

27

///

28
1

On September 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntarily dismissal of Defendants G.

1
2

Sandor, E. Molina, J. Bulgarin, A. Belnap, T. Quillen, J. Carranza, I. Alvarado, L. Hurtado, C. Perez,

3

and M. Magana.

4

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all of the

5

defendants or claims in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d

6

688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has the absolute right to dismiss

7

his claims against Defendants G. Sandor, E. Molina, J. Bulgarin, A. Belnap, T. Quillen, J. Carranza, I.

8

Alvarado, L. Hurtado, C. Perez, and M. Magana, without prejudice. Duke Energy Trading & Mktg.,

9

L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001). The filing of the notice itself has the effect of

10

terminating these Defendants, and the Court no longer has jurisdiction over the claims against those

11

Defendants. Id. However, Plaintiff is advised that if he wishes to amend his claims against the other

12

remaining Defendants, he must file an amended complaint in accordance with the deadline set forth in

13

the Court’s September 13, 2017, order granting his extension of time, or the action will be dismissed

14

for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

18

September 20, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2