Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03067/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03067-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAFONZO R. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

P A RISENHOOVER,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03067-KAW (PR)

ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION FROM 

PLAINTIFF REGARDING MOTION 

FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Lafonzo R. Turner, a prisoner at California State Prison, Sacramento, filed this 

pro se civil rights case against Physician’s Assistant Risenhoover, an employee at Pelican Bay 

State Prison, where Plaintiff was previously incarcerated. Plaintiff originally filed this case in the 

Central District of California and, on June 25, 2015, the claim against Risenhoover was severed 

and transferred from the Central District to this district. On December 2, 2015, Defendant 

Risenhoover filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g), which Plaintiff has opposed.

On January 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the claims against 

the City of Sacramento under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(i) and (ii). However, the only 

defendant in this action is Risenhoover. Defendant Risenhoover has responded that she does not 

oppose Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his action against her, if that is what he intended to do. 

Therefore, the Court requests Plaintiff to clarify whether he filed the motion for voluntary 

dismissal of the claim against the City of Sacramento in this case in error or whether he seeks to 

dismiss his case against Risenhoover. Plaintiff shall file a declaration clarifying this issue within 

twenty-eight days from the date of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to respond within this time, the 

Case 4:15-cv-03067-KAW Document 45 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court shall consider that the motion for voluntary dismissal was filed in error and rule on 

Defendant’s motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2016

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-03067-KAW Document 45 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 2