Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00149/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00149-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORNEL JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

HERMINA MARLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00149-HBK (PC)

ORDER NOTING VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) AND FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) OF 

CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Doc. No. 10)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REVISE 

DOCKET TO REFLECT ONLY NAMED 

DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Cornel Jackson, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se in this action filed under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On January 16, 2024, this Court issued a screening order on Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 9). As discussed in the Court’s screening order, the 

Court found the FAC states cognizable claims against Defendants Quick, Marley, Followill, 

Ramos, Cortes, and Rivera in their individual capacities for First Amendment retaliation, First 

Amendment right to communication with counsel, Sixth Amendment right to assistance of 

counsel, and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. (Id. at 1-2). The 

Screening Order afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to either (1) file a notice under Rule 41 and 

Case 1:23-cv-00149-KES-HBK Document 11 Filed 02/15/24 Page 1 of 3
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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 that he is willing to proceed only on the claims the court 

found cognizable in its screening order; or (2) stand on his FAC subject to the undersigned 

issuing Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the claims not deemed cognizable. (Id. at 17-

18).

On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice to Stand on the First Amended Complaint 

and Voluntarily Dismiss Defendants and Noncognizable Claims. (Doc. No. 10). In his signed 

and dated Notice, Plaintiff states, “for the reasons described in the magistrates [sic] screening 

order, [Plaintiff] is going to stand on his First Amended Complaint and voluntarily dismiss 

Defendants and noncognizable claims, in order to start litigation.” (Id. at 2). 

A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss any defendant or claim without a court order by filing 

a notice of dismissal before the opposing party answers the complaint or moves for summary 

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(i). Here, no party has answered or moved for summary 

judgment. (See docket). Further, the Ninth Circuit recognizes a party has an absolute right prior 

to an answer or motion for summary judgment to dismiss fewer than all named defendants or 

claims without a court order. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Alternatively, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Notice as a motion to amend the Complaint under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 

683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 15(a) “is appropriate mechanism” when party is eliminating an 

issue or one or more claims but not completely dismissing a defendant). 

In accordance with Plaintiff’s Notice, Plaintiff’s FAC will proceed only on his claims 

against Defendants Quick, Marley, Followill, Ramos, Cortes, and Rivera for (1) First Amendment 

retaliation, (2) First Amendment right to communication with counsel, (3) Sixth Amendment 

right to assistance of counsel, and (4) Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the 

law. (See Doc. No. 8). Defendants County of Madera and Pogue Esteves, and Plaintiff’s 

remaining claims not deemed cognizable are dismissed under Rule 41. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Clerk of Court shall correct the docket to add Sgt. J. Quick as a named Defendant 

and terminate Defendants Esteves and County of Madera to reflect Plaintiff’s notice of 

Case 1:23-cv-00149-KES-HBK Document 11 Filed 02/15/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) of these same Defendants.

2. The Court will direct service upon Defendants Quick, Marley, Followill, Ramos, 

Cortes, and Rivera by separate order. 

Dated: February 15, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00149-KES-HBK Document 11 Filed 02/15/24 Page 3 of 3