Jones v. Wetzel et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 2/13/2017. (jn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARCELLUS JONES,
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN WETZEL, ET AL.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 4:CV-16-2548
(Judge Brann)

MEMORANDUM
February 13, 2017
Background
Marcellus Jones, an inmate presently confined at the Fayette State
Correctional Institution, LaBelle, Pennsylvania (SCI-Fayette) filed this pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named as Defendants are Secretary
John Wetzel and other supervisory officials employed by the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (DOC) as well as multiple officials at Plaintiff’s prior
place of confinement, the State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
(SCI-Huntingdon).
After being directed to do so, Plaintiff submitted an in forma pauperis

1

application on February 6, 2017. 1 See Doc. 6. On that same day, Plaintiff filed
a “motion to withdraw civil complaint.” Doc. 8.
Discussion
As noted above, Plaintiff has submitted a motion to withdraw which
indicates that he does not wish to proceed with this action. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)((i) provides that a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a
court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either
an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Dismissal under this provision is
without prejudice.
Service of the complaint has not yet been ordered. Based upon a review of
Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw, it is appropriate to construe that pro se submission
as seeking voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).
The Court will accept Jones’ pro se request to withdraw and his complaint
will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's renewal of his claims. However,
Plaintiff is forewarned that renewal of his claims is subject to the applicable
statute of limitations. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985). An

In light of Plaintiff’s filing of an in forma pauperis application, his motion
(Doc. 5) seeking an extension of time to submit paperwork necessary to pursue this
matter will be denied as moot.
1

2

appropriate Order will enter.2

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

Since Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw was filed the same day as the in forma
pauperis application, the in forma pauperis application will also be deemed
withdrawn.
2

3