Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01440/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01440-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CDCR-Medical
Defendant
Juan Montenegro
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

JUAN MONTENEGRO, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CDCR-MEDICAL,

 Defendant.

1:19-cv-01440-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER 

RULE 41

(ECF No. 20.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 

CLOSE FILE 

Juan Montenegro (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)

On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this case. (ECF 

No. 20.) Plaintiff has a right to voluntarily dismiss this case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. 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 

Case 1:19-cv-01440-AWI-GSA Document 21 Filed 03/02/20 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

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 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. DavenportHarris 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). No defendant has filed an answer 

or motion for summary judgment in this case. 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 case 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: February 28, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01440-AWI-GSA Document 21 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 2