Roy D. Moraga v. Hartman, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ROY D. MORAGA, Case No. 3:25-cv-00399-ART-CSD Plaintiff, ORDER v.

HARTMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

On September 9, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because he has four strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the complaint does not meet the imminent harm exception. In response, Plaintiff has filed a motion for voluntary dismissal stating that that the Court is not going to give him the justice required by Nevada Revised Statutes. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff also states that he has never received notice that any cases that he has filed were strikes. (Id.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No answer or motion for summary judgement has been filed. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and dismisses this action without prejudice. Although the Court has granted Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this case, the Court will briefly address Plaintiff’s statements regarding strikes. The PLRA does not require that a dismissal order specifically state that the dismissal constitutes a strike. In fact, even cases that were filed before the PLRA was enacted can count as strikes. See Tierney v. Kupers, 128 F.3d 1310, 1311– 1 } 12 (9th Cir. 1997). In the Court’s order, the Court detailed the three cases that 2 were dismissed for failure to state a claim and the appeal that was dismissed as 3 frivolous. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Plaintiff does not dispute that he initiated these cases 4 and that they were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Cases that are dismissed 5 for failure to state a claim, and appeals dismissed as frivolous, constitute strikes 6 regardless of whether the dismissal order specifically states that they are strikes. 7 Il. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the Court grants □□□□□□□□□□ 9 motion for voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 7). This action is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. DATED THIS 30th day of September 2025. oun Pee Vaated

Is UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE