Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02040/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02040-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Audrey King
Defendant
Phillip Patino
Plaintiff

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

PHILLIP PATINO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AUDREY KING, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-02040-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

(ECF No. 7) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET 

TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Phillip Patino (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff initiated this action on December 22, 2014. Plaintiff 

consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 4.) 

On March 19, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within 

thirty days. (ECF No. 6.)

On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to Withdraw Complaint 

Without Prejudice.” Plaintiff requests “dismissal without prejudice.” (ECF No. 7, p. 1.) The 

Court construes the motion as one requesting voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). 

“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(i), 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.”

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(quotation and citation omitted). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no 

Case 1:14-cv-02040-BAM Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 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

court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant 

can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Id. at 1078. In 

this action, there is no operative complaint on file, no defendant has been served, and no 

defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this 

case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant 

to Rule 41(a). All pending motions, if any, are terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02040-BAM Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 2