Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02526/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02526-10/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

REGINALD WHEELER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M HODGES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2526 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, requested that this action be dismissed. On 

September 6, 2016, defendants were ordered to notify the court whether they objected to the 

dismissal of this action. On September 13, 2016, defendants responded that they do not object to 

the dismissal of the action, but based on the time and effort expended in defending this matter, 

asked the court to exercise its discretion and dismiss the action with prejudice. 

Rule 41(a)(2) provides: 

Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at 

the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court 

considers proper. . . . Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal 

under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Rule 41 vests the district court with discretion to dismiss an action at the 

plaintiff’s instance “upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” Hargis v. Foster, 

312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2002)

Case 2:13-cv-02526-MCE-KJN Document 60 Filed 09/14/16 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

The undersigned reviewed plaintiff’s request, as well as the record in this 2013 case. In 

addition to the time and effort defendants expended in defending this case, the court has similarly 

expended significant time and effort, including the issuance of an 18 page ruling on defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment, recommending that the motion be granted. Therefore, the court 

finds that it is proper to dismiss this action with prejudice. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this action (ECF No. 57) is granted; and

2. This action is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: September 14, 2016

/whee2526.59

Case 2:13-cv-02526-MCE-KJN Document 60 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 2