Handian v. Shepard ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAROUT HANDIAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-01280-ADA-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE SUSAN WARD 13 v. TARNER AS DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION 14 MARK SCOTT SHEPARD, et al., (ECF No. 25) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff initiated this action on October 7, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) On March 15, 2023, 18 default was entered against Defendant Susan Ward Turner. (ECF No. 19.) On April 18, 2023, 19 Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant Susan Ward Tarner. (ECF No. 25.) 20 The other named Defendant Mark Scott Shepard is not subject to the notice. (Id.) 21 Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all 22 of the defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 23 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The 24 plaintiff may dismiss either some or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—through 25 a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”)); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 26 (9th Cir. 2005) (The Ninth Circuit has “only extended the rule to allow the dismissal of all claims 27 against one defendant, so that a defendant may be dismissed from the entire action.”). “Filing a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the 1 | defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Concha, 62 F.3d at 1506. 2 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Susan Ward 3 | Tarner from this action without prejudice. 4 "| so ORDERED. A (oe 6 | Dated: _ April 19, 2023 , UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28