Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00277/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00277-2/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

KAREEM J. HOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. VERA, I. MEDINA, I. CEBALLOS, 

J.B. FUGATE, J. NAVARRO,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00277-HBK (PC)

ORDER NOTING VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS 

AND CLAIMS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REVISE 

DOCKET TO REFLECT ONLY NAMED 

DEFENDANT

(Doc. No. 12)

Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell, a prisoner, is proceeding pro se in this action filed under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 16, 2023, this Court issued a screening order on Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 10). As discussed at length in this Court’s August 16, 

2023 Screening Order, the FAC states a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against 

Defendants Vera, Medina, Ceballos, Fugate, and Navarro; a Eighth Amendment failure to protect 

claim against Defendants Vera, Medina, Ceballos, Fugate, and Navarro; and a Eighth 

Amendment excessive use of force claim against Defendants Vera, Medina, Ceballos, Fugate, and 

Navarro but no other claim. (Doc. No. 10 at 4-8). Specifically, the Court found the FAC did not 

state any cognizable claim against Defendants Randolph, J. Gallenger, and C. Gipson. (Id.). The 

Screening Order afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to (1) file an amended complaint; (2) file a 

Case 1:22-cv-00277-KES-HBK Document 13 Filed 09/12/23 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

notice under Rule 41 that he is willing to proceed only on the claims the court found cognizable 

in its screening order; or (3) stand on his FAC subject to the undersigned issuing Findings and 

Recommendations to dismiss the defendants and claims not cognizable. (Id. at 8-10). On 

September 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pleading, dated September 2, 2023, signed to under penalty of 

perjury stating that he desires “proceed only on his first amendment retaliation claim, his Eight 

Amendment failure to protect claim, and his Eight Amendment excessive use of force claim. 

Thereby voluntarily dismissing all other Defendants Randolph, Gallenger, and Gipson who this 

court found no cognizable claims against.” (Doc. No. 12).

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). In 

accordance with Plaintiff’s notice, Randolph, J. Gallenger, and C. Gipson are dismissed without

prejudice by operation of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Plaintiff’s FAC will proceed on his

First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Vera, Medina, Ceballos, Fugate, and 

Navarro; Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Vera, Medina, Ceballos, 

Fugate, and Navarro; and Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claim against Defendants 

Vera, Medina, Ceballos, Fugate. (See Doc. Nos. 7, 10). The Court will direct service of process 

on Defendant Defendants Vera, Medina, Ceballos, Fugate, and Navarro by separate order. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The Clerk of Court shall correct the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary 

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) of Defendants Randolph, Gallenger, and Gipson and Defendant H. 

Campos who was not named in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

Dated: September 11, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00277-KES-HBK Document 13 Filed 09/12/23 Page 2 of 2