Filed: May 29, 2018
Latest Update: May 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE DEFENDANTS UNKNOWN CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER 1, UNKNOWN CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER 2, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER JACOB, AND DOES 1-10 AS PARTIES IN THIS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1) (ECF No. 22) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . This action was filed on March 15, 2018. On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of Unknown Customs and Border Protection Offi
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE DEFENDANTS UNKNOWN CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER 1, UNKNOWN CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER 2, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER JACOB, AND DOES 1-10 AS PARTIES IN THIS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1) (ECF No. 22) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . This action was filed on March 15, 2018. On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of Unknown Customs and Border Protection Offic..
More
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE DEFENDANTS UNKNOWN CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER 1, UNKNOWN CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER 2, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER JACOB, AND DOES 1-10 AS PARTIES IN THIS ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1) (ECF No. 22)
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
This action was filed on March 15, 2018. On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of Unknown Customs and Border Protection Officer 1, Unknown Customs and Border Protection Officer 2, Customs and Border Protection Officer Jacob, and Does 1-10 pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
"[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), `a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.'" Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993). "[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can't complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it." Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is HEREBY ORDERED to terminate Defendants Unknown Customs and Border Protection Officer 1, Unknown Customs and Border Protection Officer 2, Customs and Border Protection Officer Jacob, and Does 1-10 as parties in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.