Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KORRELL SANTANA COLE, No. 1:25-cv-00460 KES GSA (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ACKNOWLEDGING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF v. THIS MATTER SOTO, et al., (See ECF No. 14)
Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE, CONSISTENT WITH PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied and why this matter should not be closed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF No. 13.
On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss this matter. ECF No. 14. For the reasons stated below, the Court will acknowledge Plaintiff’s notice and consistent with it, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to close this case.
*2 I. RELEVANT FACTS
On April 22, 2025, Plaintiff’s complaint was docketed along with his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2.
proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied and why this matter should not be closed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF No. 13.
As the Court explained, the complaint reflects that when Plaintiff was asked whether there are any grievance procedures available at CSATF, in both Claim One and Claim Two, Plaintiff checked both the Yes and No boxes and writes that legitimate procedures unavailable . See ECF No. 1 at 3, 10. When then asked if he submitted his appeal for each claim to the highest level, his response in both Claims was “Yes.” However, when then asked if he did not submit an appeal or a request for administrative relief at any level, why he did not do so, in Claim One, Plaintiff responds, “And [sic] emergency appeals filed due to imminent threat to safety.” Id. at 3 (brackets added) (error in original). Plaintiff did not provide an answer to this question in Claim Two. See id. at 10.
As the Court further explained, the complaint clearly shows that Plaintiff’s claims of constitutional violation of right stem from the fact that on either April 15th or April 16th of 2025, after he had filed grievances related to CSATF prison officials denying certain ADA-status inmates incontinent showers, Plaintiff was moved from a single cell to a double cell. The complaint also shows that on April 22, 2025, Plaintiff purportedly signed the complaint and sent it to the Court for filing. See ECF No. 1 at 14 (signature date of complaint). Interestingly, the complaint was also filed with the Court on that same date, April 22, 2025.
The Court further explained that, given these findings, it is clear on the face of the complaint that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies, that he has not provided a viable excuse under Ross to excuse that failure, and that his complaint must be summarily dismissed.
Thus, on April 29, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause and was given 14 days to respond. Id. On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss this matter. ECF *3 No. 14.
II. DISCUSSION
In the notice, Plaintiff states that he would like the Court to dismiss this case without prejudice and provides some contextual information on his reasoning. Plaintiff explains that he did not receive the Court’s April 29, 2025 order to show cause until May 6, 2025, and due to a modified lockdown he was unable to do research or rebut the Court’s recommendation— ostensibly regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies—in a timely effective manner. ECF No. 14 at 2. Thus, Plaintiff explains that he is choosing to voluntarily dismiss in order to cure the deficiencies in a new petition. Id, Plaintiff attaches a “Daily Program Status Report” (Id. at 6) which he states establishes his lack of access to a law library. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff further explains that—for the record—he believes the Court erred in refusing to recognize an irreparable injury exception to the PLRA because he clearly explained there was an imminent threat to his personal safety and that he was facing irreparable harm and imminent retaliation. Id. Finally, Plaintiff explains as follows:
Corcoran ‘SATF’s’ grievance process is not capable of use to obtain relief because it operates as a simple dead end with the office of grievances consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved prisoners, and prison administrators thwart IPS from utilizing it through intimidation and misrepresentation. My grievance filings include many administrative dispositions that show that the office of grievances routinely dismiss and mishandle my complaints by refusing to investigate them and improperly screening them out as duplicates, inclusively denying each and every American Disabilities Act reasonable accommodation request I ever filed. This is being done by machination. There is no remedy, the prison will not provide a remedy. 5. I still face an imminent threat to my health and safety and I cannot defend myself due to my physical limitations/disability. The issue is ongoing. But it is obvious that the Magistrate gives my situation no heed. Id. at 3. As discussed above, Plaintiff clearly expressed his desire to voluntarily dismiss the matter to allow him “to cure the deficiencies in a new petition”. Accordingly, the notice of voluntary dismissal will be construed as such. The Court will not analyze or otherwise address the additional statements and arguments quoted above as Plaintiff does not request such be done.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case *4 without a court order if an opposing party has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Given that this case has not yet been screened, Plaintiff’s notice that he would like to dismiss this case is permitted under the rule. The Court acknowledges this herein and consistent with Plaintiff’s notice it will direct that the Clerk of Court close this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court herein ACKNOWLEDGES Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 14). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), 2. The case will be dismissed without prejudice, and
3. Consistent with Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 14), the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE