Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01643/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01643-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON RILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUERRERO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01643-BAM (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

(ECF No. 10)

Plaintiff Shannon Riley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 5, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and granted Plaintiff leave 

to file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty (30) days from 

the date of service of that order. (ECF No. 9.) On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant 

motion for dismissal of action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). (ECF No. 

10.) In his notice, Plaintiff states that he is currently in the process of returning to state court for a 

hearing regarding a petition for re-sentencing, and he does not believe he would be able to 

effectively litigate this complaint and his criminal case as well. Plaintiff therefore requests 

voluntary dismissal of this action, and states that he will re-file his complaint in not later than six

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01643-BAM Document 11 Filed 03/10/20 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

months with the Court’s permission.

1

 (Id.)

“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), 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.” 

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(quotation and citation omitted). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no 

court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant 

can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Id. at 1078. No

defendant has been served in this action and no defendant has filed an answer or motion for 

summary judgment.

Accordingly, this action is terminated by operation of law without further order from the 

Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending 

motions and deadlines and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff need not obtain the Court’s explicit permission to attempt to refile his complaint. However, the Court also cannot provide legal advice to Plaintiff regarding any 

possible future issues that may arise when or if he attempts to re-file this action.

Case 1:19-cv-01643-BAM Document 11 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2