Opinion
Case No.: 1:10-cv-02366-AWI-SAB (PC)
06-23-2014
JORGE ALBERTO ORNELAS, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
TERMINATE ACTION PURSUANT TO
PLAINTIFF'S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
[ECF No. 47]
Plaintiff Jorge Alberto Ornelas is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this action. On June 12, 2014, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the action.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) provides that "the plaintiff may dismiss an action without court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." Voluntary dismissal under this rule requires no action on the part of the court and divests the court of jurisdiction upon the filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal. See, e.g., United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing consequences of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)).
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not require a particular form of a notice of dismissal. See Williams v. Ezell, 531 F.2d 1261, 1263 (5th Cir. 1976) (holding that a failure to cite Rule 41 was irrelevant, and giving no weight to plaintiff's choice to title the document "motion to dismiss" as opposed to "notice of dismissal"). In addition, a notice of voluntary dismissal is effective at the moment it is filed, and no judicial approval or court order is required. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608 (9th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE