Opinion
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01372-SKO PC
03-08-2013
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. H. BRAR, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO
REFLECT TERMINATION OF DEFENDANTS
BRAR AND FREEMAN AS PARTIES
PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE
(Doc. 23)
Plaintiff Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 18, 2011. On March 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendants Brar and Freeman. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993). Because Defendants Brar and Freeman have not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff has the absolute right to dismiss them from this action without a court order; once the notice of dismissal has been filed, the effect is to leave the parties as if no action had been brought and the Court loses jurisdiction. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted); Pedrina, 987 F.2d at 609-10.
Although Plaintiff asserts that he wishes to proceed against Defendant Widodo, Widodo was dismissed from this action on April 12, 2012, without prejudice but without leave to amend. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff re-alleged his claim against Defendant Widodo in his amended complaint, but the dismissal of Widodo was without leave to amend. Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal had the automatic effect of dismissing the remaining two parties, thus concluding this action. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C., 267 F.3d at 1049; Pedrina, 987 F.2d at 609-10.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to reflect the termination Defendants Brar and Freeman as parties pursuant to Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal and administratively close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE