Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01342/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01342-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Brown
Respondent
Luis Vidales
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS VIDALES,

Petitioner,

v.

JERRY BROWN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01342-LJO-SAB-HC

ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

CLOSE THE ACTION 

Petitioner is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

challenging civil-commitment proceedings under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”) 

which are ongoing in Merced County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1). On July 30, 2015, Petitioner 

filed the instant petition in the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1). The matter was 

then transferred to this district. (ECF No. 10). On September 8, 2015, the Court issued a 

findings and recommendation that recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice 

because of abstention and exhaustion. (ECF No. 14). The Court also directed the Clerk of Court 

to assign a District Judge to this matter. (ECF No. 14). On September 24, 2015, Petitioner filed 

a notice of voluntary dismissal to withdraw the complaint and have the matter dismissed without 

prejudice. (ECF No. 16). 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “. . . . the plaintiff

may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the 

Case 1:15-cv-01342-LJO-SAB Document 17 Filed 09/30/15 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

opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of 

dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Voluntary dismissal under this rule requires 

no action on the part of the court and divests the court of jurisdiction upon the filing of the notice 

of voluntary dismissal. See United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly 

Hills, CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing consequences of voluntary dismissals

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) (A)). 

In this case, Respondent has not yet filed an answer or other responsive pleading. The 

September 8, 2015 findings and recommendation is still pending before the assigned District 

Judge. Petitioner’s notice of voluntary dismissal was effective upon filing and without a court 

order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). As Petitioner voluntarily 

dismissed his case, the undersigned vacates the September 8, 2015 finding and recommendation 

currently pending before the assigned District Judge. For the sake of clarity, in light of 

Petitioner’s notice of voluntary dismissal, the undersigned directs the Clerk of Court to close the 

case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the September 8, 2015 findings and 

recommendation are vacated and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01342-LJO-SAB Document 17 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 2