Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01279/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01279-2/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

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILLARD WAYNE BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SHAHBAZIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01279-HBK (PC)

ORDER NOTING VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO RULE 41 

AND RULE 15(a)

(Doc. No. 11)

Plaintiff Millard Wayne Baker, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis on his Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). On November 15, 2024, 

the Court issued a screening order on Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. No. 9). As discussed at length 

in the Court’s November 15, 2024 Screening Order, the Complaint states a cognizable Eighth

Amendment deliberate medical indifference claim against Defendant Dr. Shahbazian and state 

law claims against Shahbazian for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but 

no other claims. (Id. at 1). The Screening Order afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to (1) file an 

amended complaint; (2) file a notice under Rule 41 and Rule 15(a) that he is willing to proceed 

only on the claims the court found cognizable in its screening order; or (3) stand on his Complaint 

subject to the undersigned issuing Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the defendants and 

claims not cognizable. (Id. at 15-16). 

On November 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which appears to be 

Case 1:24-cv-01279-HBK Document 12 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 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

2

nearly identical to Plaintiff’s initial Complaint but contains different exhibits than the initial 

Complaint and specifies that all Defendants are sued in both their individual and official 

capacities. (Compare Doc. Nos. 1, 10). On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff then filed a Notice 

Under Rule 41 and Rule 15(a). (Doc. No. 11). In it, Plaintiff states that he just received the 

Court’s November 15, 2024 Screening Order and wishes to “respect the Court’s findings about 

dropping the defendants and claims other than R. Shahbazian.”1(Id. at 1). The Court liberally 

construes Plaintiff as seeking to voluntarily dismiss the claims and defendants found not 

cognizable in the Court’s November 15, 2024 Screening Order and proceed on his Eighth 

Amendment and state law claims against Defendant Shahbazian. However, Plaintiff also states 

that he would like to include with his operative complaint the exhibits attached to his FAC and 

clarify that his claims against Defendant Shahbazian are in his individual capacity. (Id. at 1). 

Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss any defendant or claim without a court order by filing a 

notice of dismissal before the opposing party answers the complaint or moves for summary 

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(i). Here, no party has answered or moved for summary 

judgment. (See docket). Further, the Ninth Circuit recognizes a party has an absolute right prior 

to an answer or motion for summary judgment to dismiss fewer than all named defendants or 

claims without a court order. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Alternatively, the Court construes Plaintiff’s notice to dismiss any other claims against Defendant

Dr. Shahbazian as a motion to amend the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 15(a) 

“is appropriate mechanism” when party is eliminating an issue or one or more claims but not 

completely dismissing a defendant). In accordance with Plaintiff’s notice, Plaintiff’s remaining

claims are dismissed without prejudice by operation of law. 

Because the FAC appears to be identical to the initial Complaint, apart from the exhibits 

attached and Plaintiff clarifies that his claims are brought against Shahbazian in his individual and 

official capacities, the Court will deem the FAC the operative complaint and order it served on 

1 The Court infers that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed before receiving the Court’s 

November 15, 2024 Screening Order.

Case 1:24-cv-01279-HBK Document 12 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 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

3

Defendant Shahbazian.

Plaintiff’s FAC will proceed only on his Eighth Amendment deliberate medical 

indifference claim and state law negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims 

against Defendant Dr. Shahbazian in his individual capacity. (See Doc. No. 10). The Court will 

direct service of process on Defendant Dr. Shahbazian by separate order. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) is deemed the operative complaint 

in this case.

2. Plaintiff shall be permitted to proceed on his Eighth Amendment deliberate medical 

indifference claim against Defendant Dr. Shahbazian and state law claims for 

negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court will direct 

service of process on Defendant Shahbazian by separate order.

3. Plaintiff’s remaining claims and Defendants Hixon, Williams, and Olsen are dismissed 

by operation of law pursuant to Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. No. 

11).

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to correct the docket to reflect the dismissal of 

Defendants Hixon, Williams and Olsen.

Dated: December 3, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01279-HBK Document 12 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 3