Pacheco v. Allen
- Lin
- 3:23-cv-06020
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Pacheco v. Ayala, Judge Lin dismissed Luis Pacheco’s civil-rights case without prejudice after treating his letter as a voluntary dismissal.
Luis Pacheco and the defendants were affected: the case was dismissed without prejudice, the defendants’ summary-judgment motion was vacated, and the clerk was directed to close the case.
What happened
In Pacheco v. Ayala, Luis Pacheco, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint against Ayala and others. He later sent the court a letter asking to drop the case because he could not find an attorney and might have to pay the defendants’ attorney fees if he lost.
The court treated the letter as a request for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Because the defendants had not filed an answer and Pacheco sent the letter before the defendants served their summary-judgment motion, the court found that he could voluntarily dismiss the case.
Judge Rita F. Lin dismissed the case without prejudice, vacated the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Pacheco v. Allen · No. 3:23-cv-06020
- Lin
- May 2, 2025
Background
Luis Pacheco, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ayala and other defendants. On April 13, 2025, he sent the court a letter asking to end the case. He stated that he could not find an attorney to represent him and might have to pay the defendants’ attorney fees if he lost.
Applicable rule
The court construed Pacheco’s letter as a request for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). That rule gives a plaintiff an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss an action before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Unless the notice says otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning the case is not barred from being filed again on that basis.
Court’s analysis
The defendants had not filed an answer. Although their summary-judgment motion was entered on the court’s electronic docket on April 18, 2025, the court reviewed Pacheco’s letter and determined that it had been postmarked and sent before the defendants served the motion. The court therefore treated the voluntary dismissal as effective.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case without prejudice. It also vacated the summary-judgment motion, identified as Docket No. 27, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.