1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCOS CONTRERAS GONZALEZ. Case No. 1:25-cv-01004-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 13 v. DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 JOSEPH B. EDLOW, et al., (ECF No. 8, 9) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On October 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice stating, “[u]nder Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure 41(A), this action is dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff in its entirety.” (ECF 20 No. 8, p. 1). 21 Because Defendants had made an appearance, the Court issued order that by no later than 22 October 17, 2025, Defendants file a statement regarding whether they agree with the dismissal, or 23 in the alternative, a stipulation signed by all parties. (ECF No. 9). However, upon review, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) states that a notice of 24 dismissal by the Plaintiff is effective without a court order “before the opposing party serves 25 either an answer or a motion for summary judgment,” which Defendants have not done. 26 Accordingly, the Court’s October 3, 2025, order (ECF No. 9) is VACATED. 27 Moreover, in light of Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 8), IT IS 28 1 | ORDERED that this case be dismissed without prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 | 41a) (Aj). See Wilson v. City of San Jose,

, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. bated: _ October 6, 2025 [sf hey □ 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28