Case ID: f-appx_536/html/0732-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rejeanne BERNIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Hans S. Corteau, Plaintiff, v. Jocelyn G. CROTEAU, aka Jessie G. Croteau; Paul M. King; Royal Electric, Inc., a California corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-55058.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2013.
    Rejeanne Bernier, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Douglas Wade Andrews, I, Andrews & Rhodes LLP, Diamond Bar, CA, Linda Diane Bartz, Esquire, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rejeanne Bernier appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against certain defendants with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Am. Soccer Co., Inc. v. Score First Enters., 187 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir.1999), and we vacate.

On December 1, 2010, Bernier filed a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i). The filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal automatically terminated the action, “leav[ing] no role for the court to play.” Am. Soccer Co., 187 F.3d at 1110. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order filed on December 7, 2010 granting the pending motions to dismiss and dismissing with prejudice Bernier’s claims against the defendants who had filed those motions because the filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal should have resulted in a dismissal of the entire action without prejudice. See Fed. R. CiP. 41(a)(1).

Bernier’s request for a stay is denied.

Appellee King and Royal Electric, Inc.’s request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.