Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00546/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00546-7/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

ROLAND THOMAS KOCH, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:18-cv-00546-NONE-GSA-PC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER 

RULE 41

(ECF No. 4.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE 

FILE 

Roland Thomas Koch (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this case on April 19, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) 

On December 18, 2018, the court screened the Complaint and dismissed it for failure to 

state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 15.) On January 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First 

Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 16.) On December 20, 2020, the court 

screened the First Amended Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, with leave to

file a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19.) On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a request 

for a 90-day extension of time to amend the complaint, which was granted by the court on January 

23, 2020. (ECF Nos. 20, 22.)

On February 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “motion for evaluation,” in which he asks the court 

to agree with him that he should dismiss this case, without prejudice to refiling the case upon his 

release from the facility where he is detained. Plaintiff describes his difficulties in preparing the 

Case 1:18-cv-00546-NONE-GSA Document 25 Filed 02/24/20 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

amended complaint and asserts that he is also proceeding with a habeas corpus petition, which 

impedes his efforts in this case. The court construes Plaintiff’s “motion for evaluation” as a 

notice of voluntary dismissal of this case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff has a right to voluntarily dismiss this case under Rule 41. In Wilson v. City of 

San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:

Under Rule 41(a)(1), 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. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 

Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 

1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of 

dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary 

judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id. 

The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his 

claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-

10 (9th Cir. 1993). The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court 

automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of 

the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is 

ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence another action for 

the same cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing McKenzie v. DavenportHarris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a dismissal 

leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id.

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No defendant has filed an answer 

or motion for summary judgment in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is 

effective, and this case shall be closed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal is effective as of the date it was filed;

2. This case is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice to refiling the case; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the file in this case and adjust the 

docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00546-NONE-GSA Document 25 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 2