Ortiz v. Ortiz

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JOSE ORTIZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-01416-AWI-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET 13 v. TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

14 FANNY ORTIZ, et al., (ECF No. 7) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Jose Ortiz (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice 19 of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 20 “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his 21 action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ” 22 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 23 (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has 24 held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet 25 to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th 26 Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, 27 the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 1 | F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. All pending matters are VACATED; and 4 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust 5 the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 6 IS SO ORDERED. OF nf Be g | Dated: _November 14, 2019 _ ef 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28