Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00381/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00381-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY BARKER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

JAMES HARTLEY, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00381-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 41

(Doc. 8.)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE 

FILE 

Anthony Barker (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

March 19, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On January 30, 2015, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure 

to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 7.) On February 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First 

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9.) 

On February 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that this case “be held in 

abeyance, or withdrawn without prejudice.” (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff explains that his evaluation and 

treatment for Valley Fever is ongoing, and he is not prepared to proceed with this litigation at 

this time. 

Case 1:14-cv-00381-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to 

defendants. However, Plaintiff has a right to dismiss this action under Rule 41(a)(1). In 

Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:

Under Rule 41(a)(1), 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. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(citing Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 

(9th Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files 

a notice of dismissal prior to the defendant=s service of an answer or motion for 

summary judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is 

required. Id. The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some 

or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 

F.2d 608, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1993). The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal 

with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are 

the subjects of the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, 

the dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence 

another action for the same cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing 

McKenzie v. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 

1987)). Such a dismissal leaves the parties as though no action had been 

brought. Id.

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No defendant has filed an 

answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff=s motion shall be 

granted and this case shall be dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED;

2. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED 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 26, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00381-LJO-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 2