Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01011/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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

 ALI NAGI SAEED MOHAMED 

 

 Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of 

Homeland Security, EMILIO T. GONZALEZ,

Director of The United States Citizenship

and Immigration Services, DAVID STILL,

District Director of The United States

Citizenship Immigration Services, 

DONALD RIDDING, Officer In Charge of the

Fresno Office of The United States

Citizenship Immigration Services 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL No. 1:06-CV-01011-AW-DLB

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL BY PLAINTIFF

ALI NAGI SAEED MOHAMED

Rule 41(a)(1) 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

The above-entitled action is hereby dismissed by plaintiff, ALI NAGI SAEED

MOHAMED, CIS Number A 46131655 , pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/JAMES M. MAKASIAN

JAMES M. MAKASIAN

 Attorney for Plaintiff

JAMES M. MAKASIAN (SBN 71791)

2300 Tulare Street, Suite 250

Fresno, CA 93721

Telephone: (559) 442-4211 Fax: 442-4127

STEVEN P. SIMONIAN, Jr. (SBN 082858) 

2300 Tulare Street, Suite 250

Fresno, CA 93721

Telephone: (559) 442-4212

Attorneys for: Plaintiff

Case 1:06-cv-01011-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 10/05/06 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 

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Rule 41(a)(1) motion to dismiss. In Wilson v. City of San Jose,

the Ninth Circuit explained:

Under Rule 41(a)(1), 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. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995)

(citing Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532,

1534 (9th Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff

files a notice of dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or

motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no

court order is required. Id. The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the

defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.;

Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1993). The filing of a notice

of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to

the defendants who are the subjects of the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506.

Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice to the

plaintiff's right to commence another action for the same cause against the

same defendants. Id. (citing McKenzie v. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home,

834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a dismissal leaves the parties as

though no action had been brought. Id.

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).

No answer to Plaintiff’s complaint and no motion for summary judgment has been

filed in this case and it appears that no such answer or summary judgment motion has

been served. Because Plaintiff has exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss his complaint

under Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated as explained by Wilson v. City of San Jose.

111 F.3d at 692.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to

close this case in light of Plaintiffs’s Rule 41(a)(1) Voluntary Dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01011-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 10/05/06 Page 2 of 2