UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. 5:23-cv-02445-WDK-SHK Date: June 13, 2024 Title: Leihinahina Sullivan v. Warden of Victorville Camp FCI Med, I, et al.

Present: The Honorable William D. Keller, United States District Court Judge D. Castellanos Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff Leihinahina Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint (“Withdrawal Motion”). Electronic Case Filing (“ECF No.”) 17, Withdrawal Mot. By way of background, on November 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint (“Complaint”) in this action. ECF No. 1, Compl. On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Amended Redacted Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 10, FAC. On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees (“IFP Request”). ECF No. 13, IFP Request. On April 19, 2024, the Court issued an Order regarding the IFP Request (“IFP Order”), instructing Plaintiff to submit more information in order for the Court to rule on the IFP Request. ECF No. 14, IFP Order. While Plaintiff’s IFP Request was pending, Plaintiff filed the Withdrawal Motion, stating “I am withdrawing my [C]omplaint in this instant action.” ECF No. 17, Withdrawal Mot. at 1. Because Plaintiff seeks to withdraw the operative FAC in this case, which will leave no operative pleading or any causes of action against any defendants, the Court construes the Withdrawal Motion as a notice of Plaintiff’s intent to voluntarily dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(b). Under Rule 41(a), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order “by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). “Unless the notice . . . states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). “Under Rule 41(a)(1), 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[.] The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required.” Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted).

Here, because Plaintiff’s IFP Request was pending before the Court, the FAC was not served on Defendants because it would be subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if the IFP Request was granted. As such, Plaintiff’s FAC was still under the screening phase and had not been served on Defendants when Plaintiff filed the Withdrawal Motion. Though no court order is necessary to effectuate dismissal, see Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692, the Court enters this Order to clarify that Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the Complaint was effective on filing.

Therefore, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s Withdrawal Motion. Additionally, because Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses this action, the currently pending IFP Request, ECF No. 13, is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.