Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00977/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00977-2/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

ANDY GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GONZALEZ and CHARLES,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00977-HBK (PC)

ORDER NOTING VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) AND FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) OF 

CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Doc. No. 12)

Plaintiff Andy Gomez, a prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 23, 2023, this Court issued a screening order on 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. As discussed at length in this Court’s June 23, 2023 Screening Order, the 

Complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants 

Gomez and Charles in their individual capacities but no other claim. (Doc. No. 7 at 4-6). 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 cognizable. (Id. at 7). After 

granting Plaintiff two extensions of time to respond to the June 23, 2023 Screening Order, on 

September 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pleading, signed and dated September 25, 2023, titled 

“Plaintiff’s Intent to Stand on Current Complaint as Screened.” (Doc. No. 12). In the pleading 

Case 1:22-cv-00977-HBK Document 13 Filed 09/29/23 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

Plaintiff states he “intend[s] to stand on the current complaint as screened and proceed only on his 

Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against both defendants Gonzalez and Charles in their 

individual capacities, thereby voluntarily dismissing the Fourteenth Amendment and official 

capacity claims....” (Id.).

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). 

Alternatively, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 

and official capacity claims against Defendants Gonzalez and Charles as a motion to amend the 

Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 15(a) “is appropriate mechanism” when

party is eliminating an issue or one or more claims but not completely dismissing a defendant). 

In accordance with Plaintiff’s notice, his Fourteenth Amendment and official capacity claims are 

dismissed without prejudice by operation of law. Plaintiff’s Complaint will proceed on his Eighth

Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Gomez and Charles. (See Doc. Nos. 1, 

7). The Court will direct service of process on Defendants Gomez and Charles by separate order. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment and official capacity claims against Defendants Gomez 

and Charles are dismissed without prejudice.

Dated: September 29, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00977-HBK Document 13 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 2