IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 12, 2012
SEAN MATTHEW ONEAL, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On April 12, 2012, defendant removed plaintiff's case from the Sacramento County Superior Court to this court.*fn1 On May 8, 2012, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Request-Clerk of Court to Enter Dismissal Without Prejudice," which seeks the dismissal of this case without prejudice and "as of right" (Dkt. No. 5). The court construes plaintiff's request as a notice of voluntary dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which provides that "the plaintiff may 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." Dismissal under this rule requires no action on the part of the court, and the filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal divests the court of jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008).
The record in this case reflects that defendant has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action. Accordingly, plaintiff effectuated the dismissal of this case upon filing his request, and no court order is required to dismiss this case. However, the court enters this order for the sake of clarity.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's case is dismissed without prejudice.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.