Roy D. Moraga v. Hartman, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00399
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 ROY D. MORAGA, Case No. 3:25-cv-00399-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 HARTMAN, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 I. DISCUSSION 11 On September 9, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed 12 in forma pauperis because he has four strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the 13 complaint does not meet the imminent harm exception. In response, Plaintiff has 14 filed a motion for voluntary dismissal stating that that the Court is not going to 15 give him the justice required by Nevada Revised Statutes. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff 16 also states that he has never received notice that any cases that he has filed were 17 strikes. (Id.) 18 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may dismiss an 19 action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing 20 party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. 21 P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No answer or motion for summary judgement has been filed. 22 Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and dismisses this action without 23 prejudice. 24 Although the Court has granted Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss 25 this case, the Court will briefly address Plaintiff’s statements regarding strikes. 26 The PLRA does not require that a dismissal order specifically state that the 27 dismissal constitutes a strike. In fact, even cases that were filed before the PLRA 28 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 10 || without prejudice. 11 12 DATED THIS 30th day of September 2025. 13 oun Pee Vaated

Is UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28