Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01289/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01289-6/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

CHRISTOPHER DUPREE,

Plaintiff,

v.

HICKMAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1289 AWI SMS P

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

VOLUNTARILY DISMISS COMPLAINT (Doc.

18.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

TERMINATE ACTION 

 Christopher DuPree (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant

action on October 12, 2005, naming Roderick Hickman, Jeanine Woodford, A.K. Scribner, T.

Hudgins, C. Crammer, S. Taloerico, J. Diaz, J. Hill, L. James, D. Nunez, A. Garcia as

Defendants in this action. 

On December 21, 2006, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it with

leave to amend. Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file an Amended Complaint curing

Case 1:05-cv-01289-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 02/12/07 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

the deficiencies outlined by the Court. 

On January 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion to Dismiss without

prejudice.” Plaintiff states that he wishes to have his action dismissed without prejudice due to

circumstances beyond his control. 

“[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. No defendant has filed an answer or other responsive

pleading.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED;

2. 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01289-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 2