Elmer v. Hinkley

Opinion

4 5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JOHN ELMER, Case No. 1:24-cv-00871-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE HINKLEY AS A 13 v. DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION

14 HINKLEY, et al., (ECF No. 26)

15 Defendants.

17 On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal of Defendant Hinkley without 18 prejudice. (ECF No. 26.) Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to 19 dismiss some or all of the defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of 20 San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th 21 Cir. 1995) (“The plaintiff may dismiss either some or all of the defendants—or some or all of his 22 claims—through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”)). 23 Defendant Hinkley has not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment in this 24 action. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by 25 filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for 26 summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Hinkley as a defendant in 2 | this action. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 | Dated: _ March 6, 2025 ; STANLEY A. BOONE 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28