Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00083/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00083-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-00083-LAB-BLM

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE McCLOUD,

CDCR #C-42751

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O T. BIRD-HUNT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00083-LAB-BLM

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

RE-OPEN CASE 

[ECF No. 7]

On January 10, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and while incarcerated at Richard 

J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, filed a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging three correctional officials at Richard J. 

Donovan Correctional Facility violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect 

him from attack at the hands of a fellow inmate on February 8, 2018, and denied him due 

process during an inmate appeals process following the incident. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 

at 2-5.) He also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2).

Just two weeks later, on January 28, 2019, and before the Court had an opportunity 

to rule on his IFP or screen his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 

§ 1915A, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (See ECF No. 5.) 

Case 3:19-cv-00083-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 03/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-00083-LAB-BLM

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

Because no Defendants had yet to be served, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) permits 

dismissal without prejudice and without a court order, Plaintiff’s Notice automatically 

terminated this action. Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman Am. Exp., Inc., 813 F.2d 1532, 

1534–35 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A voluntary dismissal by a plaintiff [Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)]

automatically terminates the action upon the filing of the dismissal with the clerk.”).

Now, two months later, Plaintiff has filed a letter with the Clerk of the Court 

requesting to “re-file the case under the same case number,” explaining that he now seeks 

to proceed because his administrative remedies have been exhausted. (See ECF No. 7 at 

1, 2.) Plaintiff further asks that the Clerk of Court provide him with a copy of the 

Complaint he filed back in January because he did not keep a copy and is indigent. (Id.)

Because a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) is without 

prejudice however, and it is not clear that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997(a) before he filed his Complaint in this case, the Court 

DENIES his Motion to re-open this case. See Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 1076, 1078 

(9th Cir. 2017) (noting that the “exhausti[on of] available remedies during the course of 

litigation d[oes] not comply with § 1997e(a)’s requirements,” and that a prisoner “must 

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing an action.”) (citing McKinney v. 

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added)).

Should Plaintiff wish to prosecute the claims originally alleged in this case, which 

he now contends have been exhausted, he should file a new and separate civil action, 

together with a new Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which 

includes a certified copy of his trust account statements covering the 6-month period 

preceding the filing of his new Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).1

 

1 Because Plaintiff is incarcerated at RJD, he must submit his new Complaint and IFP 

Motion electronically pursuant to S.D. Cal. General Order 653A. See S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 

653A (describing pilot e-file program requirements for prisoners at RJD, Calipatria, and 

Centinela State Prisons).

Case 3:19-cv-00083-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 03/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-00083-LAB-BLM

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

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons discussed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Open this case is DENIED 

(ECF No. 7). 

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the 

Complaint filed on January 10, 2019 (ECF No. 1) for his reference and records; however, 

the Clerk will assign and supply him with a new civil case number should he elect to 

proceed by filing a new Complaint. 

This civil action, Case No. 3:19-cv-00083-LAB-BLM, will remain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00083-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 03/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3