BRACKEN v. DURAN

Case No. 1:17-cv-00306-AWI-JLT (PC).

JUSTIN BRACKEN, Plaintiff, v. DURAN, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Justin Bracken, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ORDER CLOSING THE CASE BASED UPON PLAINTIFF'S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

(Doc. 16)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

On June 20, 2017, the Court screened the Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend to allow Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies noted; alternatively, Plaintiff could file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Doc. 15.) In response, Plaintiff filed a notice that he is "not ready to go through with" this action until he goes "home and find (sic) me a lawyer (sic) will represent me. Bye thank you and God bless." (Doc. 16.) It appeared that Plaintiff intends to voluntarily dismiss this action. However, because the filing was a bit vague, the Court ordered the plaintiff to file a statement indicating whether he wished to voluntarily dismiss the action. (Doc. 17.) That order warned that if Plaintiff failed to file a statement, the Court would presume that he did intend to dismiss the matter without prejudice under Rule 41. (Doc. 17.) The plaintiff did not respond.

The Ninth Circuit has 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, 609-10 (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. Davenport-Harris 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 appeared in this case. Because Plaintiff has exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss the complaint under Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. Therefore, the Clerk is directed to close this case in light of Plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(i) requested dismissal without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases