gno.law

North v. Salazar

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-02041 · 2025-05-16 · Unknown

Proceeding
district
Area
civil
Panel
Janis L. Sammartino (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:04Z · confidence high

The court considered a request by a pro se prisoner plaintiff to voluntarily withdraw his civil action after the court had previously dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. The court granted the request, treating it as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), and ordered the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the case.

What the court decidedThe model
Plaintiff's Request for Voluntary Withdrawal (ECF No. 6) is granted, and the case is dismissed.
“Plaintiff's Request for Voluntary Withdrawal (ECF No. 6), liberally construed as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the case.”
agree with court
The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The order recites that no party had been served with a valid pleading and no answer or motion for summary judgment had been filed, satisfying the conditions for a plaintiff to dismiss an action as a matter of right. The court also correctly noted that the form of the filing (a 'request' or 'motion' rather than a 'notice') does not preclude its operative effect as a voluntary dismissal, citing Ninth Circuit and district court authority. The dismissal is without prejudice, as is standard for a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal, allowing the plaintiff to refile in state court as he indicated he intended to do.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)), verifies the prerequisites for dismissal as a matter of right (no service of a valid pleading, no answer, no summary judgment motion), and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority to support the automatic nature of the dismissal and the sufficiency of the plaintiff's filing format. The court's liberal construction of the pro se plaintiff's filing is consistent with the standard of review applied to pro se litigants.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEMARUEA NORTH, Case No.: 24-CV-2041 JLS (VET) CDCR #BJ-7624, 12 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST Plaintiff, 13 FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL vs. PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a) 14 SGT. SALAZAR, ADA Correctional 15 (ECF No. 6) Sergeant; S. STEADMAN, Associate 16 Warden; JAMES HILL, Warden, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 Before the Court is a request filed by Plaintiff Demaruea North, a prisoner at Richard 22 J. Donovan Correctional Facility, who is proceeding without counsel in this case pursuant 23 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). On April 16, 2025, the Court granted 24 Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), but dismissed 25 his Complaint sua sponte because it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 26 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). See ECF No. 5. The Court 27 provided Plaintiff notice of his pleading deficiencies and granted him 45 days leave in 28 which to amend. Id. at 6‒15. The Court further cautioned that if Plaintiff failed to submit 1 an amended complaint within the time provided, it would enter a final order dismissing this 2 civil action based both on his failure to state a claim and his failure to prosecute. See id. 3 at 16 (citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not 4 take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 5 dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”)). 6 In response, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Voluntary Withdrawal” seeking to dismiss 7 the case. See ECF No. 6. Plaintiff claims his mental health status and limited access to 8 legal resources make it difficult to proceed, and the Court’s screening Order made clear to 9 him that his claims are better raised under a negligence cause of action in state court. See 10 id. at 2. 11 REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 12 The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates 13 the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice. . . . Such a dismissal 14 leaves the parties as though no action had been brought.” Am. Soccer Co., Inc. v. Score 15 First Enters., 187 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 16 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations and footnote omitted)). Thus, because Plaintiff has 17 notified the Court he does not wish to prosecute his case at this time, no party has yet to be 18 served with any valid pleading, and no answer or motion for summary judgment has yet to 19 be filed, voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is appropriate. See 20 Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman Am. Exp., Inc., 813 F.2d 1532, 1534–35 (9th Cir. 1987) 21 (“As the rule states, no action by the court is required for dismissal by notice under Rule 22 41(a)(1)(i). A voluntary dismissal by a plaintiff under this subsection automatically 23 terminates the action upon the filing of the dismissal with the clerk.”). “[T]he fact that 24 [Plaintiff’s] filing was named as a ‘motion’ does not preclude its operative effect as a notice 25 of dismissal.” Ramirez-Ramos v. Ryan, No. CV-18-8086-PCT-NVW (JFM), 2019 WL 26 885624, at *6 (D. Ariz. Jan. 18, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 27 859690 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2019) (“Although the document filed by [plaintiff] was 28 denominated a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal rather than a notice of dismissal as 1 || specified in Rule 41(a)(1), the Court finds this distinction to be without legal significance 2 since the effect desired by [plaintiff] in filing the document with the Court was clearly to 3 his claims dismissed without prejudice.”); see also 9 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2363, 4 || Voluntary Dismissal—Dismissal as a Matter of Right (3d ed.) (“It is merely a notice and 5 ||not a motion, although a notice in the form of a motion is sufficient.”). 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons explained, Plaintiff's Request for Voluntary Withdrawal (ECF 8 || No. 6), liberally construed as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 ||41(a), is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a final judgment of dismissal and 10 close the case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: May 16, 2025 . tt f te 13 on. Janis L. Sammartino 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cites, in this corpus