Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00638/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00638-5/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

DE’ANDRE IVISON WESTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JOANNA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00638-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER NOTING VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Doc. No. 15)

Plaintiff De’Andre Ivison Weston, a pretrial detainee, is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis on his Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). On November 7, 2024, 

the Court issued a screening order on Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. No. 14). As discussed at 

length in the Court’s November 7, 2024 Screening Order, the Complaint states a cognizable 

Fourteenth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claim against Defendant Dr. Joanna for 

failure to refer Plaintiff to an outside dental specialist but fails to state a claim on any other basis. 

(Doc. No. 14 at 7-8). The Screening Order afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to (1) file an 

amended complaint; (2) file a notice under Rule 41 and Rule 15(a) 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 and Recommendations to dismiss the defendants and 

claims not cognizable. (Id. at 9). On November 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pleading that was

signed and dated on November 14, 2024, stating he “intend[s] to proceed on [his] 14th

Case 1:24-cv-00638-KES-HBK Document 16 Filed 12/02/24 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

Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Dr. Joanna based on her delay in 

referring [him] to outside care, thereby voluntarily dismissing any other claims not cognizable.” 

(Doc. No. 15).

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). 

Alternatively, the Court construes Plaintiff’s notice to dismiss any other claims against Defendant

Dr. Joanna as a motion to amend the Complaint 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, his other claims 

against Dr. Joanna are dismissed without prejudice by operation of law. Plaintiff’s Complaint 

will proceed on his Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Dr. 

Joanna. (See Doc. Nos. 1, 14). The Court will direct service of process on Defendant Dr. Joanna 

by separate order. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Complaint proceeds only on his Fourteenth Amendment deliberate medical 

indifference claim against Defendant Dr. Joanna based on her delay in referring Plaintiff for 

outside medical care and no other claim. 

Dated: December 2, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00638-KES-HBK Document 16 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2