David Williams v. Lompoc Federal Corrections Complex

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 31, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00236
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00236-CJC-PLA Document 10 Filed 01/31/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:172

1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 DAVID WILLIAMS, ) No. CV 22-236-CJC (PLA) ) 13 Plaintiff, ) ORDER CLOSING CASE ) 14 v. ) ) 15 LOMPOC FEDERAL CORRECTIONS ) COMPLEX, et al., ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 ) 18 On January 10, 2022, plaintiff filed a “Complaint for Administrative Review” (ECF No. 1) 19 without paying the Court’s filing fee or submitting a request to proceed without prepayment of the 20 filing fee. (ECF No. 1). On January 14, 2022, the Court gave plaintiff 30 days to submit an 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis, and advised that failure to do so would result in dismissal 22 of the action. (ECF No. 8). Instead, in a letter dated January 19, 2022 (ECF No. 9), plaintiff 23 submitted a document in which he asks that the Court close his case and states that no filing fee will 24 be forthcoming (“Request”). The Court construes the Request as a request for voluntary dismissal 25 of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 26 Rule 41 allows for the voluntary dismissal of an action by a plaintiff without prejudice and 27 without a court order before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary 28 judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman Am. Express, Inc., 813 F.2d 1532, Case 2:22-cv-00236-CJC-PLA Document Filed 01/31/22 Page2of2 Page ID#:173

1534 (9th Cir. 1987). Defendant has not yet been served or appeared in this action. Accordingly, 2] this case is closed. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Ko / Lo 51 DATED: vanuary 31, 2022 f. e HONORABLE RMAC J. CARNEY 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JY GE 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28