Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01402-3/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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL; DIRECTING

THE CLERK’S OFFICE TO CLOSE THE

CASE; AND DENYING ALL PENDING

MOTIONS AS MOOT

(Docs. 9, 11, and 13)

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 VoluntaryWithdrawal Without Prejudice” (Doc. 11). On May17, 2010, Plaintiff

filed a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 41,” in which he

requested: (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. 

(Doc. 13).

Since Rule 41(a)(1)(B) notes that, unless noted otherwise, a dismissal thereunder “is without

prejudice[, b]ut 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” the Court

1

Case 1:09-cv-01402-SMS Document 14 Filed 05/26/10 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

requested confirmation from Plaintiff of his desire to voluntarily dismissthis action even though the

end result might be that a voluntary dismissal would operate as an adjudication on the merits if

Plaintiff had previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same

claim(s). (Doc. 12.) Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a notice confirming his desire to voluntarily

dismiss this action. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary withdrawal without prejudice filed on March 25,

2010 (Doc. 11) and Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule Civil

Procedure 41 (Doc. 13), are GRANTED; 

2. the Clerk’s Office is directed to close the case; and 

3. all other pending motions are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01402-SMS Document 14 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 2