DAVID W. CHRISTEL, Magistrate Judge.
The District Court referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff Richard Roy Scott's "FRCP 41 Notice of Withdrawal of Contaminated Water Issue Only" ("Motion to Bifurcate") and Motion to Lift Stay. Dkt. 56, 57. After review of the pending Motions and relevant record, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate (Dkt. 56) and directs the Clerk of Court to add Richard Roy Scott as a Plaintiff in Malone v. Strong, 3:16-cv-5284-RBL-DWC. The Court also grants Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay (Dkt 57).
I. Motion to Bifurcate (Dkt. 56)
Plaintiff filed the Motion to Bifurcate on May 24, 2017, requesting to withdraw the contaminated water claim alleged in his Complaint because he joined a separate lawsuit. Dkt. 56. In this Court, there are approximately 200 plaintiffs currently alleging constitutional violations arising from the potable water at the Special Commitment Center ("SCC"). See Malone v. Strong, 3:16-cv-5284-RBL-DWC ("Related Case"). Plaintiff contends he has joined the Related Case and is now being represented by Attorney Casey Arbenz.
The Court recognizes Plaintiff cannot use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) to "dismiss, unilaterally, a single claim from a multi-claim complaint." Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988). Rather, a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of a single claim is subject to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, while Plaintiff cannot amend as a matter of right, leave to amend `shall be freely given when justice so requires.'" AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)). Plaintiff is attempting to withdraw, not add, a claim and there is no evidence Defendants will be prejudiced if the Court allows Plaintiff to withdraw the contaminated water claim from this case. Therefore, the Court deems Plaintiff's Complaint amended. The claims alleging constitutional violations arising from the potable water at the SCC are withdrawn from the Complaint.
II. Motion to Lift Stay (Dkt. 57)
On May 9, 2017, the Court stayed Plaintiff's case while waiting for an answer and scheduling order to be filed in the Related Case. Dkt. 55. Plaintiff has now withdrawn the claim in his Complaint related to the claims alleged in the Related Case, see Section I, supra, and moves to lift the stay. Dkt. 57. As the Court has granted Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate, the Court agrees the stay is now unnecessary. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay (Dkt. 57) is granted.
After review of the Motions and relevant record, Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate (Dkt. 56) and Motion to Lift Stay (Dkt. 57) are granted. Any claims arising from the contaminated water at the SCC are withdrawn from the Complaint.