Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01042/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01042-4/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

DAVID ANDREWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. TORRES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01042-BAM-PC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET 

TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff David Andrews is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 6.) This matter currently proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Hebron, Jones, and Torres for the denial 

of a computational review hearing. 

On August 31, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint for the failure to state a claim, and on the basis of qualified immunity. (ECF No. 34.) 

On September 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (ECF No. 35.) In that notice, Plaintiff states that an initial 

parole consideration hearing was conducted on September 8, 2016, that it was almost a year late, 

but that “in the spirit of compromise and respecting judicial economy, barring any mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” he agrees to dismiss this action. (Id. at 1.)

Case 1:12-cv-01042-BAM Document 37 Filed 11/09/16 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

On September 27, 2016, Defendants filed a stipulation of dismissal. Defendants state that 

their understanding is that the motion to dismiss does not preclude Plaintiff from voluntarily 

dismissing this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Nevertheless, in the alternative, 

Defendants also stipulate to a dismissal of this action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

“[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) 

(quotation and citation omitted). “[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. The 

filing of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) does not operate as an answer or motion for 

summary judgment for the purposes of Rule 41(a)(1), and does not trigger the application of 

Rule 41(a)(2), which provides for dismissal only by court order. See Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 

F.3d 1139, 1146 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss supported by extraneous 

materials cannot be regarded as one for summary judgment until the district court acts to convert 

the motion by indicating, preferably by an explicit ruling, that it will not exclude those materials 

from its consideration. Until the district court has so acted, a plaintiff is free to file a proper 

notice of dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).”).

Accordingly, 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, without prejudice,

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). All pending motions are terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01042-BAM Document 37 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 2