Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00754-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. Aguirre
Defendant
N. Fairfield
Defendant
R. A. Lopez
Defendant
Edward B. Spencer
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

EDWARD B. SPENCER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

N. FAIRFIELD, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00754-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT E. AGUIRRE UNDER 

RULE 41

(ECF No. 12.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO REFLECT 

THE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT 

E. AGUIRRE FROM THIS ACTION 

ON THE COURT’S RECORD

Edward B. Spencer (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

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

May 15, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On January 15, 2015, the Court dismissed the Complaint for 

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 8.) On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed the First Amended Complaint, naming three defendants: N. Fairfield, R. A. Lopez, and E. 

Aguirre. (ECF No. 11.)

On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to voluntarily dismiss defendant E. Aguirre 

and all of Plaintiff’s claims against defendant E. Aguirre from this action, without prejudice. 

Case 1:14-cv-00754-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 10/28/15 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

(ECF No. 12.) 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, 

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, defendant E. 

Aguirre has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Therefore, 

Plaintiff=s notice of dismissal is effective, and defendant E. Aguirre and all of Plaintiff’s claims 

against defendant E. Aguirre are dismissed from this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Defendant E. Aguirre and all of Plaintiff’s claims against defendant E. Aguirre 

are DISMISSED from this action, without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to reflect the dismissal of defendant E. 

Aguirre on the Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00754-DAD-EPG Document 14 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 2