Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02083/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02083-9/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH LAVERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. DHILLON et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2083 MCE AC P

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 29, 2016, the magistrate judge filed an order and findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief and a 

temporary restraining order be denied, and, in response to plaintiff’s “motion to dismiss without 

prejudice,” directing plaintiff to file a notice clarifying whether he wishes to proceed with this 

action. ECF No. 108. The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and 

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be 

filed within fourteen days. Defendants have filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations, ECF Nos. 109 & 110, as has plaintiff, ECF No. 111.

Case 2:13-cv-02083-DAD-AC Document 113 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 3
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

In their objections, defendants assert the magistrate judge lacked authority once Plaintiff 

filed his “motion to dismiss without prejudice,” ECF No. 101, which constituted a notice of 

voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) and was effective upon filing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1) ([T]he plaintiff may dismiss an action without order of the court . . . by filing a notice of 

dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or motion for summary

judgment.”); Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The filing of the notice [of 

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)] itself closes the file.”) (internal citations and alterations omitted).

“Courts in this circuit have an obligation to give a liberal construction to the filings of pro 

se litigants, especially when they are civil rights claims by inmates,” Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 

F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). In the instant case, plaintiff’s “motion to dismiss” was 

equivocal: plaintiff appeared to assert that he wished to continue seeking relief, but could not 

move forward without assistance from the court or some other source. See ECF No. 101 at 1-5. 

Accordingly, the magistrate judge provisionally construed plaintiff’s motion as a request for 

additional assistance, see ECF No. 108 at 5:7-12, an apparently accurate construction based on 

plaintiff’s subsequent filings, see ECF Nos. 104, 105, 106, 107, 111. Because plaintiff’s “motion 

to dismiss” was not clearly a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1), the filing of the 

motion did not operate to close this action, and the magistrate judge acted within her authority to 

adjudicate plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 29, 2016 are adopted in full;

////

////

////

////

Case 2:13-cv-02083-DAD-AC Document 113 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order 

(ECF No. 81) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.Dated: September 30, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-02083-DAD-AC Document 113 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 3