Simon v. San Quentin Prison Trust Office

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 2, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02259
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Luis Pacheco ID: G15199 High Desert State Prison P.O. Box 3030 Susanville, CA 96127-3030

23-cv-06020-RFL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS PACHECO, Case No. 23-cv-06020-RFL

Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. Re: Dkt. No. 27 AYALA, et al., Defendants.

Luis Pacheco, a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 13, 2025, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court seeking to drop the case because he cannot find an attorney to represent him and he may have to provide attorney fees for Defendants if he loses. (Dkt. No. 28 at 1). The Court construes the letter as a request for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Under Federal Rule 41(a)(1), “a plaintiff has ‘an absolute right’ to voluntarily dismiss an action ‘prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’” Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, 88 F.4th 1268, 1279 n.4 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). The dismissal may be with or without prejudice, but unless plaintiff’s notice of dismissal states otherwise, it is deemed to be without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Here, Defendants did not file an answer and the motion for summary judgment was filed with the Court on April 18, 2025. While the summary judgment motion was docketed first on the Court’s electronic docket, a review of Plaintiff’s letter confirms that it was postmarked and sent to the Court prior to service of the summary judgment motion. Pursuant to Rule (a), this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 27) is VACATED. The Clerk shall close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 2, 2025

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge