Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00576/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00576-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew James Griffin
Plaintiff
Moon
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

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. MOON,

 Defendant.

1:15-cv-00576-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER 

RULE 41

(Doc. 8.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE 

FILE 

Matthew James Griffin (APlaintiff@) is a proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case was filed on April 15, 2015. (Doc. 1.) 

On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to voluntarily dismiss this case without 

prejudice. (Doc. 8.) 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 

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, 

Case 1:15-cv-00576-LJO-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/19/15 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

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: June 19, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00576-LJO-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 2