From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dupree v. Hickman

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Feb 12, 2007
CV F 05 1289 AWI SMS P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2007)

Opinion


CHRISTOPHER DUPREE, Plaintiff, v. HICKMAN, et. al., Defendants. No. CV F 05 1289 AWI SMS P United States District Court, E.D. California. February 12, 2007

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS COMPLAINT (Doc. 18.) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE ACTION

          ANTHONY W. ISHII, District Judge.

         Christopher DuPree ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 12, 2005, naming Roderick Hickman, Jeanine Woodford, A.K. Scribner, T. Hudgins, C. Crammer, S. Taloerico, J. Diaz, J. Hill, L. James, D. Nunez, A. Garcia as Defendants in this action.

         On December 21, 2006, the Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies outlined by the Court.

         On January 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled "Motion to Dismiss without prejudice." Plaintiff states that he wishes to have his action dismissed without prejudice due to circumstances beyond his control.

         "[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(I), 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.'" Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc. , 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) ( quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose , 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). "[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can't complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it." Id. at 1078. No defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading.

         Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

         1. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED;

         2. The Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Dupree v. Hickman

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Feb 12, 2007
CV F 05 1289 AWI SMS P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2007)
Case details for

Dupree v. Hickman

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER DUPREE, Plaintiff, v. HICKMAN, et. al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 12, 2007

Citations

CV F 05 1289 AWI SMS P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2007)