Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00093/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00093-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENE L. BOHANNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, , et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 07 0093 OWW SMS P 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL (Doc. 10.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET TO

REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

 Gene L. Bohannon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed this action on January 10, 2007 in the Sacramento Division of the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of California. On March 12, 2007, the Court ordered

Plaintiff to complete and submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On march 22,

2007, Plaintiff moved to have his case voluntarily dismissed. Plaintiff states that the information

provided is incomplete or incorrect and he wishes to file a new action with the assistance of an

attorney. Thus, it is his intent to do so after he retains an attorney. 

“[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.’”

Case 1:07-cv-00093-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 03/29/07 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

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999)

(quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). “[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. No defendant has filed an answer or other responsive

pleading.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is GRANTED; and 

2. 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 pursuant to Rule

41(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00093-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 2