Opinion
No. CIV S-10-1840 LKK DAD P
08-23-2011
CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KERNAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action. Plaintiff had previously filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this action but made clear that his withdrawal of all claims was contingent on the court vacating its order requiring him to pay the filing fee. On August 4, 2011, the court advised plaintiff that the court would not vacate its order requiring him to pay the filing fee because litigant filing fees are part of the cost of litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The court informed plaintiff that if he no longer wished to proceed with this action he could file another motion to voluntarily dismiss this action. Otherwise, plaintiff would be required to file an amended complaint in accordance with this court's screening order.
In response to the court's order, plaintiff has filed objections. Therein, he contends that he should not be required to amend his original complaint because it states a cognizable claim. Plaintiff states that if he is required to amend his complaint, he wishes to withdraw all of his claims in their entirety.
For the reasons discussed in the court's screening order, plaintiff's complaint does not state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff has made clear in his most recent filing with the court that he no longer wishes to proceed with this action if that would require the filing of an amended complaint. Therefore, the court will honor plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE