Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00587/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00587-2/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

SENARBLE CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTILLAN,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-00587-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR COMPETENCY 

DETERMINATION

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

(ECF No. 11) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET 

TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Senarble Campbell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff initiated this action on April 26, 2016. 

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 6).

On June 17, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within 

thirty days. (ECF No. 7). On July 13, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to stay this 

action and granted him an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9). 

On September 8, 2016, the matter was reassigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for 

all further proceedings. (ECF No. 10). 

On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff Request Complaint 

Dismiss Without Prejudice.” Plaintiff requests that the Court “dismiss the complaint without 

prejudice” because his “mental existence will not allow him to proceed within this complaint.” 

Case 1:16-cv-00587-BAM Document 12 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 3
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

(ECF No. 11, p. 1). In the alternative, Plaintiff requests a competency determination pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). (Id.) 

Request for Competency Determination

In relevant part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) mandates that the court “appoint a 

guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person 

who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit, a 

district court must hold a competency hearing “when substantial evidence of incompetence is 

presented.” Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Krain v. 

Smallwood, 880 F.2d 119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989) (preferred procedure when a substantial question 

of mental competence exists is for the district court to conduct a hearing). 

In considering Plaintiff’s request for a competency determination, the Court has reviewed 

the entirety of the docket, including Plaintiff’s complaint, motion for temporary suspension of 

legal proceedings and notice of voluntary dismissal. (ECF Nos. 1, 8, 11). These pleadings and 

papers are coherent and state Plaintiff’s position and arguments clearly in this action. There is 

no indication that Plaintiff is not competent to prosecute this action, and Plaintiff has not 

presented any evidence, much less substantial evidence, to justify a competency hearing. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a competency determination shall be denied. 

Request for Voluntary Dismissal

The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as one requesting voluntary dismissal of this 

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(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 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, there is no operative complaint on file, no 

defendant has been served and no defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary 

Case 1:16-cv-00587-BAM Document 12 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

judgment. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to close the file in this case and 

adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action. 

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for a competency determination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 17(c) is DENIED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is 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); and

3. All pending motions, if any, are terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00587-BAM Document 12 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 3