Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01598/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01598-1/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

3:17-cv-01598-GPC-PCL

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN WARE

H-13103,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN RICHARD J. DONOVAN 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01598-GPC-PCL

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

I. Procedural History

On July 31, 2017, Martin Ware (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently housed at the 

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, filed a letter with this Court claiming that 

his constitutional rights were violated when he was previously housed at the Richard J. 

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”). (ECF No. 1.) The Court liberally construed 

Plaintiff’s filing to be a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 5.) However, before the Court could rule on Plaintiff’s IFP 

Motion, he filed a “Motion for Reconsideration.” (ECF No. 8.)

Case 3:17-cv-01598-GPC-PCL Document 9 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-01598-GPC-PCL

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

II. Motion for Reconsideration

In this Motion, Plaintiff does not appear to actually seek reconsideration of any 

previous Court ruling but instead requests that the Court “void the 1983 action until 

Plaintiff can receive actual revised correct filing form and/or because he still needs more 

time to research this case and submit his complaint when ready to do so.” (Id., at 1.) The 

Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a).

II. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

(1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (ECF No. 8) and 

dismisses the entire action, without prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2).

(2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP as moot.

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01598-GPC-PCL Document 9 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2