Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00902-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLIVER GRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. FLORES, M. FRANCO, L. LANE, 

AND Q. TRUE,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00902-JLT-HBK (PC)

ORDER NOTING VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS 

AND CLAIMS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REVISE 

DOCKET TO REFLECT ONLY NAMED 

DEFENDANT

(Doc. No. 26)

Plaintiff Oliver Gray, a prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action 

filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 3, 2023, this Court issued a screening order on Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. (Doc. No. 21). As discussed at length in this Court’s screening order, the Complaint 

states a cognizable Eighth Amendment sexual assault claim against Defendant Flores but no other 

claim. (Id. at 9-11). Specifically, the Court found the Complaint did not state any cognizable

claim against Defendants Franco, Lane, or True. (Id.). The Screening Order afforded Plaintiff

the opportunity to (1) file an amended complaint; (2) file a notice under Rule 41 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 deemed cognizable. (Id. at 18-19).

Case 1:20-cv-00902-JLT-HBK Document 27 Filed 08/02/23 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

On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pleading, signed to under penalty of perjury stating that 

he desires “stand[] on my current complaint against Defendant Flores, voluntarily dismissing 

Defendants Franco, Lane, and True, and any other claims the Court has deemed not cognizable.” 

(Doc. No. 26 at 1). The Court construes the pleading as a Rule 41 notice. 

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). In 

accordance with Plaintiff’s notice, Defendant Franco, Lane, and True are dismissed without

prejudice by operation of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Plaintiff’s Complaint will proceed

on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment sexual assault claim against Defendant Flores. (See Doc. No. 

1). The Court will direct service of process on Defendant Flores by separate order. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The Clerk of Court shall correct the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary 

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) of Defendants Franco, Lane, and True.

Dated: August 2, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00902-JLT-HBK Document 27 Filed 08/02/23 Page 2 of 2