Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00568/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00568-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pam Ahlin
Defendant
Cliff Allenby
Defendant
Audrey King
Defendant
Stephen Mayberg
Defendant
Eugene Taylor
Plaintiff
Tom Voss
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EUGENE TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-00568-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER 

RULE 41

(Doc. 6.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE 

FILE 

Eugene Taylor (APlaintiff@) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

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

31, 2014, at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. (Doc. 3.) On March 

25, 2015, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 32.) This case 

now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 24, 2015, against 

defendants Cliff Allenby, Audrey King, Tom Voss, Pam Ahlin, and Stephen Mayberg. (Doc. 

31.)

On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of the complaint. (Doc. 42.) 

The court construes Plaintiff’s request as a notice of dismissal 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00568-LJO-GSA Document 44 Filed 05/04/15 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

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). In this case, no defendant has 

filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff=s notice of 

dismissal is effective, and this case shall be closed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s notice of dismissal is effective as of the date it was filed;

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: May 2, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00568-LJO-GSA Document 44 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 2