The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 JOAQUIN DANIEL MURILLO, Case No. 25-cv-00230-JST
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS
10 STEPHEN SMITH, et al., Re: ECF No. 20
Defendants.
11
12
13 Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), has filed a pro
14 se civil rights action, alleging that PBSP Warden Stephen Smith, Community Resource Manager
15 Robert Lassaco, former warden Jim Robertson, and former associate warden Barneburg limited his
16 ability to practice his religion in violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and the
17 Equal Protection Clause. This action was filed on January 7, 2025; the parties have engaged in
18 discovery; and the dispositive motion deadline is April 6, 2026. ECF Nos. 1, 12, 17-19. On
19 January 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss this case, stating that while his case has merit,
20 he lacks sufficient time to prosecute this case while also taking college rehabilitative classes and
21 preparing for his parole board hearing. ECF No. 20. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion
22 to dismiss. ECF No. 21. Good cause being shown, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to
23 voluntarily dismiss this case. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.1 Judgment is entered
24
1 Plaintiff is advised that he must still pay the full filing fee despite the voluntary dismissal of this
25
action. Porter v. Dep’t of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2009) (3d Cir. 2009) (litigant’s
voluntary dismissal of appeal did not entitle him to refund of fees for docketing and filing appeal);
26
see also Green v. Bank of Am., No. 2:12-CV-02093-GEB, 2012 WL 5032414, at *1 (E.D. Cal.
Oct. 17, 2012) (collecting cases holding that voluntary dismissal of action does not entitle litigant
27
to refund of filing fees; although cases cited concerned dismissals of appeals, reasoning in these
] in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The Clerk shall close the case.
2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 Dated: February 2, 2026
4
JON S. TIGA
5 nited States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
1]
a 12
13
14
15
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 fees in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Porter, 564 F.3d at 180. “The filing fee is assessed for the
97 || privilege of initiating the matter, without regard to the subsequent disposition.” Bustillos v.
Hernandez, No. 123CV01365SABPC, 2023 WL 7626936, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2023).
2g || Funds for the filing fee will continue to be deduced from income to Plaintiff's account in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(B)(1) until his filing fee obligation is satisfied.