Whitall v. Palomares ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAYMOND RICHARD WHITALL, G43090, Case No. 20-cv-01441-CRB (PR) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 9 PREJUDICE (ECF No. 7) 10 S. PALOMARES, et al., ll Defendant(s). 12 On July 1, 2020, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend, within 28 5 13 || days, “to allege a possible Fourth Amendment and/or retaliation claim under § 1983 against the S 14 individual correctional officers, if he can.” 15 On July 17, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for “an extension of time until December 28, z 16 || 2020” to file an amended complaint so he can exhaust available administrative remedies as to his 5 17 || Fourth Amendment and retaliation claims. ECF No. 7 at 1. Alternatively, he seeks a “voluntary 18 || dismissal... without prejudice to filing a new complaint with the added claims of retaliation and 19 || illegal search and seizure.” Id. at 2. 20 Plaintiffs motion for a lengthy extension of time to amend in order to exhaust available 1 administrative remedies is DENIED. See Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 22 || 2006) (prisoner plaintiff should exhaust before filing suit). But his alternative request for a 23 || voluntary dismissal without prejudice is GRANTED. See Fed. R. Civ P. 41(a). 24 The clerk is instructed to terminate the motion at ECF number 7 and close the file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: August 6, 2020 27 2 fa CHARLES R. BREYER 28 United States District Judge