Cisneros

(PC) Kidwell v. Cisneros

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 11, 20221:22-cv-00290California353 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEQUOYAH DESERTHAWK KIDWELL, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00290-JLT-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER TERMINATING ACTION PURSUANT v. ) TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL

THERESA CISNEROS, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 18) Defendants. ) ) )

Plaintiff Sequoyah Deserthawk Kidwell is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the action. (ECF No. 18.) “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘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.’” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.