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)

Download PDF
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

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?