Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00822/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00822-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM LUNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-00822-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND CLOSING CASE

(Doc. Nos. 71 and 73)

Plaintiff William Luna is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

in which he alleges a violation of his due process rights. (Doc. No. 28.) On November 11, 2015, 

defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 57.) On April 21, 2016, plaintiff 

filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. (Doc. No. 71.) On April 27, 2016, the 

court issued an order directing defendants to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

this notice, within ten days from service. (Doc. No. 72.) On April 29, 2016, defendants B. 

Banks-Graves, J. Crabtree, J.C. Musselman, J. Ortega, A. Pacillas, S. Pina, G. Stratton, and L. 

Wallace filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal without 

prejudice. (Doc. No. 73.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that after the opposing party files an 

answer or motion for summary judgment, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 

Case 1:13-cv-00822-DAD-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 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

request . . . by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). 

An action may also be dismissed by “stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have 

appeared.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Defendants B. Banks-Graves, J. Crabtree, J.C. Musselman, J. Ortega, A. Pacillas, S. Pina, 

G. Stratton, and L. Wallace have stated that they do not oppose plaintiff’s request to voluntarily 

dismiss the action and also represent that they stipulate to such dismissal “[t]o the extent that 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 requires Defendants to stipulate to such dismissal.” (Doc. No. 

73, at 2.) The court considers dismissal of this action without prejudice to be proper. 

Accordingly,

1. The instant action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to plaintiff’s notice of 

voluntary dismissal and defendants’ statement of non-opposition thereto;

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 57) is denied as having been 

rendered moot; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00822-DAD-SAB Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2