Sinclair v. Martinez

Opinion

RONALD JOHN SINCLAIR, Case No.: 23-cv-648-MMA (MSB) Booking #22728816, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, vs. [Doc. No. 5] SAN DIEGO SHERIFF MARTINEZ; CAPTAIN BIBEL, Defendants. On April 7, 2023, Ronald John Sinclair (“Plaintiff”), while detained at the San Diego Central Jail (“SDCJ”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Doc. No. 2. On April 18, 2023, the Court conducted the required sua sponte screening and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 3. Plaintiff was also granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and he was informed that he would be required to pay the entire $350 filing fee by garnishing his inmate trust account pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended pleading but instead he has filed a request to dismiss this matter and has further requested that no further funds be garnished from his account. Plaintiff has submitted a request to the Court stating, “please dismiss my complaint in this matter” and “please do not have them take money from my trust account [and] cancel my motion [to] proceed in forma pauperis.” Doc. No. 5. Plaintiff has “an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to” defendants being served, filing an answer or seeking summary judgment, and “[t]he filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice. Such a dismissal leaves the parties as though no action had been brought.” American Soccer Co., Inc. v. Score First Enterprises, 187 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). However, the Court cannot stop the garnishment of Plaintiff’s trust account as he requests. Regardless of whether the action is dismissed, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the filing fee. A prisoner granted leave to proceed IFP remains obligated to pay the entire fee in “increments” or “installments,” Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 84 (2016); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), and regardless of whether their action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). For the reasons explained, t Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5), liberally construed as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), is }GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss this action and close the file. Dated: May 12, 2023 Miku MM Lille HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 3 oe