IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 11, 2012
LESTER RANSBURG, III, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff Lester Ransburg, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with this action. The case has been referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On November 18, 2011, the undersigned dismissed plaintiff's complaint and granted him leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days.*fn1 (Doc. No. 9.) On December 12, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice which the court honored and this action was closed. (Doc. No. 10.) On December 21, 2011, however, plaintiff filed a motion requesting a thirty-day extension of time in which to file an amended complaint.
(Doc. No. 11.)
As noted above, this action was closed in response to plaintiff's filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal. Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a "plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment."*fn2 A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) is without prejudice, unless the notice states otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Here, the notice filed by plaintiff explicitly stated that the dismissal was without prejudice.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint will be denied. Plaintiff is advised that because he voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice he may file a complaint in a new action. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that he should consider the court's November 18, 2011 order dismissing his complaint before commencing a new action in this court. In that order, the undersigned noted that it appeared that plaintiff was alleging a claim for veteran's benefits, recounted the Ninth Circuit's recent description of the appropriate process to be employed in applying for veteran's benefits, advised plaintiff that a district court cannot review an individual veteran's claim for benefits and cautioned that it did not appear that the U.S. District Court could provide the relief plaintiff sought.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's December 21, 2011 motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 11) is denied.