Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01723/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01723-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMAS PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01723-MJS (PC)

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION

(ECF Nos. 11, 12)

CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

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

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 8, 2015, the Court screened plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

dismissing plaintiff’s federal claims for failure to state a claim and dismissing his 

supplemental state law negligence claim for failure to demonstrate compliance with the 

California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”). Plaintiff was directed to file a Second Amended 

Complaint in accordance with the Court’s order on or before July 8, 2015. Plaintiff, 

however, did not file a Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, on July 21, 2015, 

plaintiff was directed to show cause why this action should not be dismissed with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to 

prosecute. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff has now filed both a response to the Order to Show 

Cause and a motion to dismiss this action without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.)

Case 1:14-cv-01723-MJS Document 14 Filed 08/05/15 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

In his August 3, 2015 response to the Order to Show Cause and in his motion to 

dismiss, plaintiff moves for dismissal without prejudice on the ground that he intends to 

file a claim in compliance with the CTCA before refiling this action. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an 

action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party 

serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because plaintiff’s response 

and motion to dismiss are sufficient under Rule 41, plaintiff’s motion will be granted and 

this action will be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 3, 2015 motion to dismiss is GRANTED (ECF No. 12); 

2. The July 21, 2015 Order to Show Cause is VACATED (ECF No. 11);

3. This action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; and

4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01723-MJS Document 14 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 2