Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01821/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01821-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On December 4, 2015, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why his in forma 

pauperis status should not be revoked. See Doc. No. 82. On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff 

responded that he concurred with the Court’s analysis in the show cause order, he could not pay 

the $400.00 filing fee, and requested that his case be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a). See Doc. No. 83. On December 22, 2015, Defendant filed a notice of nonopposition to Plaintiff’s requested dismissal. See Doc. No. 84. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) “allows plaintiffs voluntarily to dismiss some or all 

of their claims against some or all defendants.” Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy 

Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a defendant has served an answer, but has 

not signed a stipulation to dismiss, a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal must be effected through 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 

111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: “Except as provided 

in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on 

JEREMY PINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1821 AWI MJS 

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF 

REQUESTED DISMISSAL AND ORDER 

DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS 

AS MOOT

(Doc. Nos. 58, 66, 83)

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 86 Filed 01/04/16 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

terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2). “A district court should grant a 

motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer 

some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

The Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate. There are no counterclaims, Defendant 

is in agreement that the case should be dismissed, and the Court warned Plaintiff that dismissal 

would occur if he either did not respond to the order to show cause or if he could not pay the filing 

fee. Given these considerations, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for dismissal and close this 

case. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2); Smith, 263 F.3d at 975.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal, which is construed as a request for dismissal 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), is GRANTED (Doc. No. 83) is 

GRANTED;

2. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case; and

3. All pending motions (Doc. Nos. 58, 66) are DENIED as moot.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01821-AWI-MJS Document 86 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 2