Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00510/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00510-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-00510-CAB-MSB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG K. GARRETT,

CDCR #K-95956,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00510-CAB-MSB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

PURSUANT TO 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)

[ECF Nos. 6, 14]

On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and while incarcerated at the 

Salinas Valley State Prison located in Soledad, California1, filed a civil rights complaint 

(“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1), together with a motion requesting 

the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) (ECF No. 2).

On May 10, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, 

granted his request for IFP status and dismissed the Complaint for failing to state a claim 

upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 4.) The Court granted Plaintiff 45 days 

 

1 Plaintiff later filed a notice of change of address and he is currently housed at the California State 

Prison – Los Angeles County, located in Lancaster, California. See ECF No. 5.

Case 3:19-cv-00510-CAB-MSB Document 15 Filed 12/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-00510-CAB-MSB

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

leave to file amended pleading, and directed the Clerk of the Court to provide him with a 

form for doing so. Id. at 15-16.

Instead, on June 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Intent Not to Amend the 

Complaint,” along with a “Notice of Appeal” to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

(ECF Nos. 6, 7.) However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed “because the order 

challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable.” (ECF No. 10.) In addition, on

November 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Obtain Final Judgment.” (ECF No. 14.) 

This Motion, along with Plaintiff’s “Notice of Intent Not to Amend the Complaint,” the 

Court will liberally construe as a “Motion for Voluntary Dismissal” pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a).

The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically 

terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice .... Such a 

dismissal leaves the parties as though no action had been brought.” American Soccer Co., 

Inc. v. Score First Enterprises, 187 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Wilson v. City 

of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations and footnote omitted)). Thus, 

because Plaintiff has notified the Court that he does not wish to pursue amendment at this 

time, no party has yet to be served with any valid pleading, and no answer or motion for 

summary judgment has yet to be filed, voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) is appropriate. See Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman Am. Exp., Inc., 813 F.2d 

1532, 1534–35 (9th Cir. 1987) (“As the rule states, no action by the court is required for 

dismissal by notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(i). A voluntary dismissal by a plaintiff under this 

subsection automatically terminates the action upon the filing of the dismissal with the 

clerk.”).

To the extent that Plaintiff also seeks to amend the names of Defendants and 

include additional exhibits to his original Complaint, this request is DENIED. The Court 

previously granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and informed him that his 

amended complaint “must be complete by itself without reference to his original 

pleading.” (ECF No. 4 at 16.) He chose not to amend. (See ECF No. 6.)

Case 3:19-cv-00510-CAB-MSB Document 15 Filed 12/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-00510-CAB-MSB

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

Therefore, should Plaintiff wish to prosecute the claims originally alleged in this 

case, along with his purported amendments, he should file a new and separate civil 

action, together with either the $400 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), or a 

Motion to Proceed IFP. 

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons explained, Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) (ECF Nos. 6, 14) is GRANTED. 

The case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00510-CAB-MSB Document 15 Filed 12/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3