Frank v. County of Humboldt et al

Filing 218

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION AS REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL; DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS; DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 18, 2014. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/18/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

MINNY FRANK,

11
12
13
14

No. C 13-0089 MMC

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, et al.,
Defendant.

15

/

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S
NON-OPPOSITION AS REQUEST FOR
DISMISSAL; DISMISSING CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID AND
JENNIFER WILLIAMS; DENYING AS
MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On May 26, 2014, plaintiff Minny Frank filed a “Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment Against Defendants David and Jennifer Williams.” On June 9, 2014, said
defendants filed a “Motion to Dismiss,” which the Court construes as an opposition to
plaintiff’s motion. Thereafter, on June 16, 2014, plaintiff filed a document titled “Non
Opposition Response to Defendants David and Jennifer Williams Motion to Dismiss,” in
which plaintiff states, in full:
Plaintiff mindful that Defendants and Plaintiff are in pro per, Plaintiff has no
opposition to the motion, however, and not otherwise adopting that the Second
Amended Complaint would have been futile. Said Plaintiff respectfully requests the
Court Grant the Defendants[’] Request as to all causes of action against the
Defendants David and Jennifer Williams in this Complaint.
(See Non Opposition Response at 1-2.)
Having read and considered plaintiff’s June 16, 2014 response, the Court construes
such filing as a request for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

1
2
3
4
5

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against defendants David Williams and Jennifer
Williams are hereby DISMISSED.
In light of such dismissal, said defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment are hereby DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated: June 18, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2