Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06106/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06106-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

 Identified as Eller Wine in the complaint.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN BERNARD BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6106-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS

AGAINST DEFENDANTS HARVEY, HARO,

AND ERLEWINE, AND DISMISSING

DEFENDANTS HARVEY, HARO, AND

ERLEWINE FROM ACTION

(Doc. 96)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS HARVEY,

HARO, AND ERLEWINE’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT IN LIGHT

OF DISMISSAL

(Doc. 82)

Plaintiff Steven Bernard Brooks (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by

federal actors. On August 16, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of his claims

against defendants Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine.1 Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition on

September 19, 2005.

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), plaintiff’s claims against

defendants Harvey, Haro, and Erlewine are DISMISSED, without prejudice, and defendants Harvey,

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 104 Filed 09/28/05 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’s claims against defendants Andrews, Global Experts in Outsourcing Corporation (GEO),

Calabrise, Kroger, Johnson, and Rinson remain pending.

2

Haro, and Erlewine are DISMISSED from this action.2 As a result, defendants Harvey, Haro, and

Erlewine’s motion for summary judgment is moot and is DENIED on that ground.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 104 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2