Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01402-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01402-SMS PC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO ADVISE

IF DESIRES TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS

THE ACTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 41

(Doc. 11)

Plaintiff Curtis Lee Henderson, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action on

July 30, 2009, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on August 18, 2009. On February 10, 2010, after discovering that Plaintiff had three

strikes, an order issued revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. On March 25, 2010, Plaintiff

filed a “Motion for Voluntary Withdrawal Without Prejudice” in which he requests: (1) to

voluntarily withdraw the case without prejudice; (2) that the voluntary withdrawal not operate as an

adjudication upon the merits of the complaint; and (3) that the withdrawal be without prejudice to

its refiling at a later date when the Plaintiff is able to pay the required filing fee. 

Ordinarily, such a motion would be construed as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(I) as, at this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has the

absolute right to dismiss his claims, without prejudice. Duke EnergyTrading and Marketing, L.L.C.

v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001). However, Plaintiff’s requests as to the effect of his

voluntarywithdrawal of this action cause some pause since Rule 41(a)(1)(B) notes that, unless noted

1

Case 1:09-cv-01402-SMS Document 12 Filed 04/13/10 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

otherwise, a dismissal thereunder “is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any

federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as

an adjudication on the merits.” Plaintiff presents no information as to whether he has previously

dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim to discern whether

dismissal would operate as an adjudication on the merits. The Court is bound to follow the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and is not at liberty to order that a voluntary dismissal will not operate as

an adjudication on the merits if Plaintiff has previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action

based on or including the same claim(s). Given this proviso, the Court is uncertain whether Plaintiff

continues to desire voluntary dismissal this action.

Accordingly, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is directed

to file a statement advising whether he desires to voluntarily dismiss this action under Rule 41. If

Plaintiff fails to complywith this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01402-SMS Document 12 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2