(PC) Saylor v. Cervantes et al
ORDER re Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Under Rule 41; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Close File, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/10/22. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRIAN ELDON SAYLOR,
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER
(ECF No. 9.)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE
Brian Eldon Saylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint commencing
this action was filed on July 20, 2021. (ECF No. 1.)
On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this case. (ECF No.
9.) 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.
Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No defendant has filed an answer
or motion for summary judgment in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is
effective, and this case shall be closed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is effective as of the date it was filed;
This case is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice; and
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file in this case and adjust the
docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 10, 2022
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?