Sneed v. Nevada Department of Corrections

Opinion

3 JAMAL SNEED, Case No. 3:24-cv-00569-MMD-CSD 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

CORRECTIONS, et al., 7 Defendants. 8

9 Pro se Plaintiff Jamal Sneed filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to 10 redress constitutional violations that he alleges he suffered while incarcerated at Northern 11 Nevada Correctional Center. (ECF No. 8.) On April 30, 2025, the Court screened the 12 second amended complaint, found that Plaintiff stated certain colorable claims, and 13 granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies 14 of another claim, if he so chooses. (ECF No. 10.) On May 6, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a 15 filing titled “Notice of Dismissal,” requesting to dismiss this action without prejudice on the 16 condition that he be permitted to file a motion to reopen the case when he is discharged 17 from suicide watch, where he is currently confined and cannot have pen and paper. (See 18 ECF No. 11.) The Court now addresses Plaintiff’s most recent filing. 20 At this stage in the case, because no opposing party has filed an answer or a 21 motion for summary judgment, voluntary dismissals are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 41(a)(1). Rule 41 (a)(1)(i) gives plaintiffs “an absolute right to dismiss [an action] without 23 prejudice,” such that a properly filed notice of dismissal takes effect upon filing, with no 24 formal role for the Court to play. See Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 25 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001). However, Rule 41(a)(1) does not permit a plaintiff to 26 “seek a conditional dismissal.” See 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. 27 & Proc. § 2366 (4th ed.) (citing Hyde Const. Co. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501, 509 (10th 28 2 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009). 3 The Court does not consider Plaintiff’s “Notice of Dismissal” to be a properly filed 4 notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1). Plaintiff requests dismissal on the condition that 5 this action be reopened when he files another motion in the future. This type of conditional 6 dismissal is not permitted by Rule 41(a)(1), so Plaintiff’s most recent filing does not 7 operate as a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of dismissal, and this case has not been closed. 8 However, the Court understands Plaintiff’s concern that it is impractical for him to 9 prepare and submit an amended complaint without access to writing utensils and paper. 10 Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff until June 30, 2025, to file a third amended complaint 11 in compliance with the Court’s prior Screening Order. (See ECF No. 10.) But Plaintiff is 12 reminded that, in that Screening Order, the Court found that Plaintiff has already stated 13 certain colorable claims in his second amended complaint. So a third amended complaint 14 is only necessary if Plaintiff would like to attempt to cure the deficiencies of the non- 15 colorable claim. Otherwise, if Plaintiff would like for this case to proceed now, he may file 16 a notice to proceed without a third amended complaint. If Plaintiff files such a notice, then 17 the Court will enter an Order staying this case for 90 days to allow the parties an 18 opportunity to resolve Plaintiff’s colorable claims with the help of the Court’s inmate 19 mediation program. 21 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s “Notice of Dismissal” (ECF No. 11) did not 22 have the effect of dismissing this case, and this case remains open. 23 It is further ordered that Plaintiff has until June 30, 2025, to file an optional third 24 amended complaint. Plaintiff may also file a motion requesting an additional extension of 25 time, if necessary. 26 It is further ordered that Plaintiff may alternatively file a notice to proceed without 27 a third amended complaint. 28 1 It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff does not file a third amended complaint or 2 || chooses to file a notice to proceed without a third amended complaint, then this action 3 || will be stayed for 90 days to allow the parties an opportunity to resolve Plaintiff's colorable 4 || claims with the help of the Court’s inmate mediation program. Those colorable claims are 5 || the: (1) First Amendment retaliation claim and Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim 6 || against Officer Ormosen and Officer Holz based on their allegedly sharing information 7 || about Plaintiff's criminal history with other inmates on October 6, 2024; and (2) First 8 || Amendment retaliation claim against Officer Holz based on his allegedly writing Plaintiff 9 || up in retaliation for threatening to file a grievance on October 6, 2024. 10 DATED: May 8, 2025. as 13 UNITED STATES M TRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28