Machado v. Harrington

Full title: ALEX MACHADO, Plaintiff, v. KELLY HARRINGTON, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Jan 14, 2011

1:10-cv-00434-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2011)

Opinion

1:10-cv-00434-AWI-GSA-PC.

January 14, 2011

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 41 (Doc. 24.) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT PREJUDICE ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE FILE

ANTHONY ISHII, District Judge

Plaintiff Alex Machado ("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 complaint on May 11, 2010. (Doc. 1.) On January 11, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 24.)

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, plaintiff's motion shall be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED;

2. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED 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.

Dated: January 13, 2011