Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01592/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01592-3/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

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

MAURICE HUNT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, et al., 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-01592-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

(ECF Nos. 6, 9, 10) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET 

TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Maurice Hunt (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). Plaintiff initiated this action on October 21, 2016.

On November 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting voluntary dismissal of 

this action. (ECF No. 6.) However, Plaintiff’s statements in his motion made his intentions

unclear, as he referred to the case number for the instant action, but at the same time referred to 

defendants in a separate action that Plaintiff had also voluntarily dismissed (Hunt v. 

Matevousian, Case No. 1:16-cv-01560-LJO-BAM (PC)).

On November 10, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to clearly identify, 

by case number and defendants, the federal court actions he intended to litigate or dismiss. (ECF 

No. 7.) On November 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed another motion to voluntarily dismiss the instant 

action. (ECF No. 9.) On November 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to the November 10, 2016 

order, indicating that his intent is to dismiss the instant action. (ECF No. 10.)

Case 1:16-cv-01592-AWI-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Pursuant to 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). 

“[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, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this case in light of 

the Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice under Rule 41(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01592-AWI-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 2