Filed: Dec. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2017
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . On September 29, 2017, plaintiff filed this mandamus action to compel the Commissioner of Social Security to comply with an administrative law judge's order to pay plaintiff attorney's fees for work done at the administrative level. (ECF No. 1.) Thereafter, on December 5, 2017, and prior to any appearance by the Commissioner, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 7.) In the notice of voluntary dismissal, plaintiff
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . On September 29, 2017, plaintiff filed this mandamus action to compel the Commissioner of Social Security to comply with an administrative law judge's order to pay plaintiff attorney's fees for work done at the administrative level. (ECF No. 1.) Thereafter, on December 5, 2017, and prior to any appearance by the Commissioner, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 7.) In the notice of voluntary dismissal, plaintiff ..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, District Judge.
On September 29, 2017, plaintiff filed this mandamus action to compel the Commissioner of Social Security to comply with an administrative law judge's order to pay plaintiff attorney's fees for work done at the administrative level. (ECF No. 1.)
Thereafter, on December 5, 2017, and prior to any appearance by the Commissioner, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 7.) In the notice of voluntary dismissal, plaintiff indicated that she had received the requested attorney's fees from the Commissioner and that her claim was therefore moot. (Id.) Later that same day, plaintiff also filed a bill of costs, requesting the court to direct the Commissioner to pay plaintiff $400.00 in costs corresponding to the filing fee that plaintiff was required to pay to commence a mandamus action in this court. (ECF No. 8.)
In light of the preceding voluntary dismissal, the court is unable to entertain a bill of costs. As the Ninth Circuit explained:
A voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i) grants a plaintiff an absolute right to dismiss without prejudice and requires no action on the part of the court. The filing itself closes the file. There is nothing the defendant can do to fan the ashes of that action into life and the court has no role to play. The effect of the filing is to leave the parties as though no action had been brought. Once the notice of dismissal has been filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the dismissed claims and may not address the merits of such claims or issue further orders pertaining to them.
U.S. v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, California, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has also not shown how, having voluntarily dismissed this action, he is a prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's bill of costs is denied.
2. The Clerk of Court shall administratively close this case in light of plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.
