From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weathington v. Kramer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 24, 2015
1:14-cv-01520-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015)

Opinion

1:14-cv-01520-AWI-GSA-PC

04-24-2015

ANTHONY WEATHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. NORM KRAMER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DISMISSING ACTION IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1) NOTICE OF DISMISSAL (Doc. No. 6)

Anthony Weathington ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on June 18, 2014. (Doc. 2.)

On April 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Doc. 6.) The court construes Plaintiff's notice as being brought pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit 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 filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this case has terminated.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that his action is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) and the Clerk shall CLOSE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 24, 2015

/s/_________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Weathington v. Kramer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 24, 2015
1:14-cv-01520-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015)
Case details for

Weathington v. Kramer

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY WEATHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. NORM KRAMER, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 24, 2015

Citations

1:14-cv-01520-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015)