Brown v. VanLuven ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Jessica Brown, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00406-CDS-NJK 5 Plaintiff Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, Denying as Moot Application to 6 v. Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and Declining to Adopt Magistrate Judge’s Report and 7 Mike VanLuven, et al., Recommendation as Moot 8 Defendants [ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9] 9 10 Plaintiff Jessica Brown seeks to voluntarily dismiss her claims against defendants Mike 11 VanLuven and the Public Defender’s Office.1 In May 2024, Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe 12 ordered Brown to complete an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $405 filing fee 13 to initiate a civil action. ECF No. 6. Brown was cautioned that failure to comply before the June 14 17, 2024 deadline would result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. Id. After finding 15 that Brown had not complied with her order, Judge Koppe issued a recommendation to dismiss 16 without prejudice. Report and Recommendation (R&R), ECF No. 7. Objections to the R&R 17 were due by July 9, 2024. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Instead of objections, Brown filed the 18 instant motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9.2 19 I. Discussion 20 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order before a 21 party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Case law 22 concerning voluntary dismissals under 41(a)(1)(A) is clear that the entry of such a dismissal is 23 1 Although the June 28, 2024 minute order advises Brown that letters to a judge will be disregarded (ECF 24 No. 9), Brown’s request to dismiss is on pleading paper. Brown is appearing pro se; consequently, the 25 court liberally construes her document as a motion and considers it herein. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful 26 pleading’ of pro se litigants.). 2 The court notes that Brown’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this case is dated June 11, 2024, though it was not filed until June 28, 2024. ECF No. 9 at 2. effective automatically and does not require judicial approval. Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal “automatically 4|| terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 6 In this case, neither VanLuven nor the Public Defender’s Office filed an answer, motion 7|| for summary judgment, or have otherwise appeared. Brown moved for dismissal of all claims 8|| after Judge Koppe issued the R@R recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice. 9|| ECF No. 7. | have not yet ruled on the RGR. Thus, Brown may technically obtain dismissal of 10} those claims without a court order under Rule 41(a)(1). II. Conclusion 12 Once a party files a voluntary dismissal [ECF No. 9], no order of the court is necessary to 13}| effectuate dismissal. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Brown’s application to proceed in forma 14|| pauperis [ECF No. 8] is DENIED as moot, and the magistrate judge’s report and 15|| recommendation [ECF No. 7] is DECLINED as moot. 16 The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to close this case. /) 17 Dated: June 28, 2024 // Und eats Ds Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26