Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02160/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02160-1/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

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CCI TEHACHAPI, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-02160-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER FOR DEFENDANT MCBRIDE TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHIN 

TWENTY (20) DAYS 

(Doc. 28.)

Durrell Anthony Puckett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the First Amended 

Complaint filed on May 9, 2013, against defendants T. Eilers, J. F. Munoz, and Gene Dozer for 

use of excessive force, against defendants R. Williams, H. Carmona, J. F. Munoz, and M. 

Webster for failure to protect Plaintiff, against defendant T. Eilers for subjecting Plaintiff to 

adverse conditions of confinement, and against defendants M. Webster, T. Eilers, Gene Doser, 

H. Carmona, and Erin K. McBride for retaliation. (Doc. 9.)

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of defendant 

McBride from this action, with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (Doc. 28.) 

Case 1:10-cv-02160-LJO-GSA Document 30 Filed 01/28/15 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

In Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), 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. Davenport-Harris 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.

In this case, defendant McBride filed and served an Answer to the complaint on August 

4, 2014. (Doc. 21.) Therefore, before Plaintiff can dismiss the case against defendant McBride 

under Rule 41(a), defendant McBride must consent in writing to the dismissal. Therefore, 

defendant McBride shall be required to respond in writing to Plaintiff's notice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty (20) days of the date of 

service of this order, defendant McBride shall respond in writing to Plaintiff's notice of 

voluntary dismissal filed on January 26, 2015, indicating whether she consents to the dismissal 

of the claims against her in this action, with prejudice, or whether she has any reason to oppose 

the dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02160-LJO-GSA Document 30 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 2