From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graves v. Supervising Deputy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2015
Case No. 1:15-cv-00548-LJO-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:15-cv-00548-LJO-JLT (PC)

06-01-2015

MICHAEL GRAVES, Plaintiff, v. SUPERVISING DEPUTY, INYO COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER, Defendant.


ORDER CLOSING THE CASE DUE TO VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 4, 12, 14)

On May 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of his Complaint in this action and requested dismissal of this case without prejudice. (Doc. 14.) Although not stated in the notice, the Court construes it as one made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i).

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).

Neither answers to Plaintiff's Complaint, nor motions for summary judgment have been filed in this case and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been served. Since 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light of Plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(i) requested dismissal without prejudice and all pending motions (Docs. 4, 12) are DISREGARDED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1 , 2015

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Graves v. Supervising Deputy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2015
Case No. 1:15-cv-00548-LJO-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)
Case details for

Graves v. Supervising Deputy

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL GRAVES, Plaintiff, v. SUPERVISING DEPUTY, INYO COUNTY PUBLIC…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 1, 2015

Citations

Case No. 1:15-cv-00548-LJO-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)