(PC) Medina v. Martinez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00935
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ROBERT MEDINA, JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-00935-KES-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO 13 RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS 14 GUSTAVO MARTINEZ, et al., 15 (ECF Nos. 53) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Robert Medina, Jr. was confined in Fresno County Jail (FCJ) at the time the 18 events giving rise to this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff 19 proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis on his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants 20 J. Alvarez, Gustavo Martinez, and First-Name-Unknown (FNU) Martinez. Defendant Alvarez 21 was served and answered Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 37). 22 On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Voluntarily dismiss this case. (ECF No. 23 53). Plaintiff states that “This is Medina” and that he is asking “to end this case” because he 24 wants to “move on with [his] life.” (Id. at 1). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) “allows plaintiffs voluntarily to dismiss some or 26 all of their claims against some or all defendants.” Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire 27 Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a defendant has served an answer 28 1 |] or a motion for summary judgment but has not signed a stipulation to dismiss, a plaintiff's 2 || voluntary dismissal must be effected through Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. 3 ||P. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 41(a)(2) provides 4 || in pertinent part: “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the 5 || plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. . . . Unless the 6 || order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. 7 ||P. 41(a)Q); Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2003). “A district court should grant a 8 || motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will 9 || suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 10 |] 2001). 11 In this case, Defendant Alvarez answered Plaintiff’s complaint on October 25, 2024. 12 || No. 37). The other two defendants remain unserved, and have not appeared in this action. 13 || Defendant Alvarez has not signed a stipulation. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff's 14 || Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss as a Motion under Rule 41(a)(2). Therefore, Alvarez shall be 15 || required to file a response to Plaintiff's notice of dismissal, either showing prejudice to 16 || defendant that will result from granting Plaintiff's motion; a statement that he does not object 17 || to the dismissal; or a stipulated dismissal with prejudice signed by all parties. 18 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that within fourteen days of this order Defendant 19 || Alvarez shall respond in writing to Plaintiff’s for Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 221! Dated: _ January 28, 2025 [Je hey 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28