Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00550/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00550-3/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

LAWRENCE M. WEISWASSER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00550-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

CLOSE THIS ACTION PURSUANT TO

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff Lawrence M. Weiswasser (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 20, 2007,

United States Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder screened plaintiff’s complaint, and ordered

plaintiff to either file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court or notify

the Court of his willingness to proceed only against defendant Rose. (Doc. 8.) On March 5, 2007,

plaintiff filed a motion seeking reconsideration in which he asserted that he would like to proceed

with his complaint against all the defendants he named or he would like to withdraw his complaint.

(Doc. 10.) The undersigned denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on March 12, 2007, stating,

“Plaintiff has set forth no grounds entitling him to reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order.

Plaintiff may either amend his complaint or proceed on his original complaint against defendant

Rose only. In the alternative, plaintiff has the right to voluntarily dismiss this action if he so

chooses.” (Doc. 11.) On March 22, 2007, plaintiff filed a response in which he states, “I move this

Honorable Court to: 1. proceed with my case as in my original complaint; or 2. I withdraw my

complaint voluntarily.” (Doc. 12.)

Case 1:06-cv-00550-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 03/26/07 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

“[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) (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. 

Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed on his original complaint against all named defendants, and

plaintiff is unwilling to either file an amended complaint or agree to proceed only on the claim found

to be cognizable. Accordingly, this Court must give effect to plaintiff’s notice of voluntary

dismissal.

Therefore, 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). (Doc. 12.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00550-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 2