(PC) Medina v. Martinez et al
Filing
54
ORDER for Defendants to Respond to 53 Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 01/28/2025. Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Deputy Clerk EF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
ROBERT MEDINA, JR.,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
Case No. 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG (PC)
ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS
v.
GUSTAVO MARTINEZ, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 53)
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff Robert Medina, Jr. was confined in Fresno County Jail (FCJ) at the time the
events giving rise to this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis on his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants
J. Alvarez, Gustavo Martinez, and First-Name-Unknown (FNU) Martinez. Defendant Alvarez
was served and answered Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 37).
On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Voluntarily dismiss this case. (ECF No.
53). Plaintiff states that “This is Medina” and that he is asking “to end this case” because he
wants to “move on with [his] life.” (Id. at 1).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) “allows plaintiffs voluntarily to dismiss some or
all of their claims against some or all defendants.” Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire
Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a defendant has served an answer
28
1
1
or a motion for summary judgment but has not signed a stipulation to dismiss, a plaintiff’s
2
voluntary dismissal must be effected through Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ.
3
P. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 41(a)(2) provides
4
in pertinent part: “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the
5
plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. . . . Unless the
6
order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ.
7
P. 41(a)(2); Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2003). “A district court should grant a
8
motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will
9
suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir.
10
2001).
11
In this case, Defendant Alvarez answered Plaintiff’s complaint on October 25, 2024.
12
(ECF No. 37). The other two defendants remain unserved, and have not appeared in this action.
13
Defendant Alvarez has not signed a stipulation. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s
14
Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss as a Motion under Rule 41(a)(2). Therefore, Alvarez shall be
15
required to file a response to Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal, either showing prejudice to
16
defendant that will result from granting Plaintiff’s motion; a statement that he does not object
17
to the dismissal; or a stipulated dismissal with prejudice signed by all parties.
18
19
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that within fourteen days of this order Defendant
Alvarez shall respond in writing to Plaintiff’s for Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 28, 2025
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?