Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00595/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00595-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN MADRIGAL, JR., )

JUAN MADRIGAL, SR., )

LILIA MADRIGAL, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS )

DEPT, CITY OF PATTERSON )

POLICE SERVICES, DEPUTY )

SHERIFF STEVE WATSON #291, )

DEPUTY SHERIFF ADAM )

BASMAJIAN, AND DOES 1-100, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV- F-06-0595 AWI SMS

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 41(A)(1)

MOTION AND DISMISSING

DEFENDANT STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

(Document #7)

On July 7, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of only

Defendant State of California pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i). 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00595-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 07/17/06 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

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 answer to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and no motion for summary judgment

have been filed in this case by Defendant State of California or any other Defendant. Because

Plaintiffs have exercised their right to voluntarily dismiss their complaint under Rule 41(a)(1)(i)

as to the State of California, the State of California is no longer a party to this suit as explained

by Wilson v. City of San Jose. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

2. The August 25, 2006 hearing date is VACATED; and

3. Defendant State of California is DISMISSED from this case without prejudice as per

Plaintiffs’ July 7, 2006, Rule 41(a)(1)(i) Voluntary Dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00595-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2