Buckel

(PC) Reed v. Buckel

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 20241:23-cv-01431California341 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MYCHAL REED, Case No. 1:23-cv-01431-NODJ-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

v. (ECF No. 27) BUCKEL, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Mychal Reed (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint has not yet been screened. On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss his case immediately. (ECF No. 27.) “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(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) (quotation and citation omitted). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks…

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.