Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01595/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01595-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MIGUEL RIOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORTIZ, MORENO, MOYA, and 

NECOCHEA,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01595-HBK (PC)

ORDER NOTING VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS 

AND CLAIMS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REVISE 

DOCKET TO REFLECT ONLY NAMED 

DEFENDANT ORTIZ

(Doc. No. 6)

Plaintiff Jose Miguel Rios, a pretrial detainee, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 9, 2024, this Court issued a screening 

order on Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. No. 5). As discussed in the screening order, the Complaint 

states a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment excessive use of force claim against Defendant Ortiz

but no other claim. (Id. at 1). Specifically, the Court found Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 

failure to protect claim against Ortiz failed to state a claim, and the First Amendment retaliation 

claims against Defendants Moreno, Moya and Necochea were misjoined. (Id. at 9). The 

Screening Order afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to (1) file an amended complaint; (2) file a 

notice under Rule 41 that he is willing to proceed only on the claims the court found cognizable 

in its screening order; or (3) stand on his Complaint subject to the undersigned issuing Findings 

Case 1:23-cv-01595-HBK Document 7 Filed 03/22/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

and Recommendations to dismiss the defendants and claims not cognizable. (Id. at 9-10). On 

March 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice dated March 12, 2024, signed to under penalty of perjury,

stating that he wishes to “proceed only on the claim deemed cognizable, Fourteenth Amendment 

excessive use of force against Defendant Ortiz, thereby voluntarily dismissing Defendants Moya, 

Moreno, and Necochea and the unrelated claims the Court deemed not properly joined or 

cognizable.” (Doc. No. 6 at 1).

Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss any defendant or claim without a court order by filing a 

notice of dismissal before the opposing party answers the complaint or moves for summary 

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(i). Here, no party has answered or moved for summary 

judgment. (See docket). Further, the Ninth Circuit recognizes a party has an absolute right prior 

to an answer or motion for summary judgment to dismiss fewer than all named defendants or 

claims without a court order. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1993). And 

Plaintiff may properly dismiss certain claim against a Defendant under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15(a). Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 

2005) (Rule 15(a) “is appropriate mechanism” when party is eliminating an issue or one or more 

claims but not completely dismissing a defendant). In accordance with Plaintiff’s notice, 

Defendants Moya, Moreno, and Necochea are dismissed without prejudice by operation of law

and Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment failure to protect claim against Ortiz is dismissed. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff’s Complaint will proceed on Plaintiff’s 

Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendant Ortiz for excessive use of force. (See Doc. Nos. 

1, 5). The Court will direct service of process on Defendant Ortiz by separate order. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The Clerk of Court shall correct the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary 

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) of Defendants Moya, Moreno, and Necochea.

Dated: March 22, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01595-HBK Document 7 Filed 03/22/24 Page 2 of 2