Johnson v. Kern Valley State Prison et al

Filing 17

ORDER CLOSING Case Due to Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/12/18. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et
al.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-01613-JLT (PC)
ORDER CLOSING CASE DUE TO
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
(Docs. 15, 16)

Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff, Sedric Eugene Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff recently filed

18

requests to dismiss this action. (Docs. 15, 16.) Although not stated in Plaintiff’s requests, the

19

Court construes them as 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

3

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.

4

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No defendant has appeared in the

5

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

6

41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. Therefore, the Clerk is ordered

7

to close this case in light of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1)(i) requested dismissal without prejudice.

2

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 12, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2