Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00969/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00969-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAM CONSIGLIO, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AUDREY KING, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-00969BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE TO REFILING WITH PROPER 

NAMED DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 13) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET 

TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff Sam Consiglio, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF 

No. 5.) On July 25, 2016, this Court issued a screening order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for 

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 8.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss this action, without prejudice 

to refiling the action naming the proper defendants. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff states in his motion 

that he has did not name all the correct defendants in this action, and he understands the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure to not permit him to add additional parties in an amended complaint. 

Thus, he seeks to dismiss this action and re-file a new case. The Court construes Plaintiff’s 

motion as a request to dismiss this action in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a).

Case 1:15-cv-00969-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/31/16 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

“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(i), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his 

action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” 

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(quotation and citation omitted). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no 

court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant 

can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Id. at 1078. In 

this action, no defendant has been served and no defendant has filed an answer or motion for 

summary judgment. 

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this 

case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant 

to Rule 41(a). All pending motions are terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00969-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 2