(PC) Valles v. Gamboa ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK VALLES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00355-ADA-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION 13 v. (ECF No. 11) 14 GAMBOA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Frank Valles (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 29, 2022, the Court screened 19 the complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action 20 based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF 21 No. 8.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on May 16, 2022. (ECF No. 9.) 22 On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss this action, with prejudice. 23 (ECF No. 11.) 24 “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(i), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action 25 prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Commercial 26 Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quotation and 27 citation omitted). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is 28 required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, 1 and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Id. at 1078. No defendant has 2 been served in this action and no defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary 3 judgment. 4 Accordingly, this action is terminated, with prejudice, by operation of law without further 5 order from the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Clerk of the Court is directed to 6 terminate all pending motions and deadlines, including the pending findings and 7 recommendations, and close this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: September 15, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28