Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01096/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01096-0/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

PAUL EDWARD DURAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. ROSS, A. VALDEZ, and E. PARKS,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01096-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. 11)

Plaintiff Paul Duran, a prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action 

filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 25, 2023, this Court issued a screening order on Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 10, “FAC”). As discussed in the July 25, 2023 Screening 

Order, the FAC states a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claim against 

Defendant Ross, but no other claim. (Doc. No. 10 at 1). Specifically, the Court found the FAC

did not state any cognizable claim against Defendants Valdez or Parks. (Id. at 8). 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 FAC subject to the undersigned issuing Findings and 

Recommendations to dismiss the defendants and claims not cognizable. (Id. at 11-12). On 

Case 1:21-cv-01096-JLT-HBK Document 12 Filed 09/05/23 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

August 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Notice Under Rule 41,” dated August 2, 2023

signed to under penalty of perjury stating that he “intends to stand on his current complaint as 

screened . . . and proceed[] only on his Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claim against 

Defendant Ross, therefore voluntarily dismissing Defendants Valdez and Parks and any other 

claims the court deemed not cognizable.” (Doc. No. 11 at 1).

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, Defendants Valdez and Parks are dismissed without prejudice 

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

Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Ross for excessive use of force. (See Doc. No. 8). 

The Court will direct service of process on Defendant Ross 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 Valdez and Parks.

Dated: September 5, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01096-JLT-HBK Document 12 Filed 09/05/23 Page 2 of 2