Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00871/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00871-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD THOMAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0871 KJM P

vs.

L. BETTI, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff originally filed this action in state court, and the defendants removed it to this

court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(b). Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that

plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit and, further, that the

suit is duplicative of an action filed in this court. See Docket No. 8. Plaintiff initially did not

respond to the motion to dismiss. On June 22, 2010, the court ordered him to file an opposition

to the motion or a statement of non-opposition within thirty days. See Docket No. 11. Plaintiff

complied by filing a statement of non-opposition, informing the court that he does not object to

dismissal of this action “because it has now been re-filed in this court under case number 2:10-

cv-1300 KJM (PC).” Docket No. 13.

/////

1

Case 2:09-cv-00871-WBS -KJM Document 15 Filed 08/11/10 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

The court construes plaintiff’s statement of non-opposition as a request for

voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The court will

therefore recommend this action be dismissed without prejudice. In so recommending, the court

expresses no finding or opinion on the substantive or procedural merit of the case docketed as

Case Number CIV S-10-1300 KJM.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign this case

to a district judge.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed (Docket No. 8)

without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 10, 2010. 

4

thom0971.57

2

Case 2:09-cv-00871-WBS -KJM Document 15 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2