(PC) Haygood v. Chavez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 HASSAUN HAYGOOD, 1:24-cv-000239-SKO (PC)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 v. (Doc. 35) 12 DANNY CHAVEZ, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO 13 Defendant. RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHIN 14 TEN (10) DAYS

15 16 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amendment free 18 exercise of religion claim against Defendant Chavez. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. 33.) 21 On March 17, 2025, Defendant Chavez filed a motion to strike, or, alternatively, a motion 22 to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (Doc. 34.) When Plaintiff failed to timely respond to 23 Defendant’s motion, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) in Writing Why Action 24 Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with the Local Rules. (Doc. 35.) 25 Plaintiff was directed to respond to the OSC within 14 days. (Id. at 2.) 26 On May 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice of Motion and Motion for 27 Voluntary Dismissal.” (Doc. 36.) 28 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff’s motion seeks a voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Doc. 36.) 3 Plaintiff states he has recently been hospitalized following a brain aneurism and is presently on 4 bed rest. (Doc. 36 at 1-2.) Plaintiff states he “cannot physically proceed with this case at this 5 time” and asks the Court to dismiss this action without prejudice allowing “him an opportunity to 6 bring a claim on this matter in the near future.” Although Plaintiff’s motion does not cite to a 7 specific rule, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal as arising under Rule 8 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his 10 action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’” 11 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 12 (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). “[A] dismissal under Rule 13 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action 14 had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do 15 anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 F.3d at 1078. Here, Defendant 16 Chavez has responded to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint by filing a motion to strike, or, in the 17 alternative, to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Defendant has neither answered the 18 complaint nor file a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, in the absence of a stipulation of 19 dismissal signed by all parties, dismissal is inappropriate pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A). 20 However, Rule 41(a)(2) provides: “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be 21 dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The phrase “terms that the court considers proper” provides district 23 courts the discretion to dismiss with or without prejudice. See Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 24 412 (9th Cir. 2002). “A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 25 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” 26 Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). Because it appears dismissal is appropriate 27 under Rule 41(a)(2), Defendant will be directed to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion seeking 28 voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, within ten days. 1 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 3 1. The OSC issued April 16, 2025 (Doc. 35) is DISCHARGED; and 4 2. Defendant Chavez SHALL file a response to Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary 5 dismissal within ten (10) days of the date of this order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 Dated: May 6, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9

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