Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01178/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01178-5/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

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

DAVID ESTRADA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M. JENNINGS, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-01178-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

(ECF No. 20) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET 

TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff David Estrada is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action. Plaintiff initiated this action on July 29, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On August 17,

2015, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 10.) 

On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal.” Plaintiff acknowledges that on June 15, 2016, the Court dismissed his complaint, 

with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff 

advises the Court that he “notices this court of voluntary dismissal.” (ECF No. 20 p. 1.) The 

Court construes the notice as a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a). 

“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(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 

Case 1:15-cv-01178-BAM Document 21 Filed 07/18/16 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

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, if any, are terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01178-BAM Document 21 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 2