Haynes v. Juarez

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2022
• Docket: 3:19-cv-02380
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERMAN T. HAYNES, Case No. 19-cv-2380-BAS-MSB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 55)

14 H. ASBURY, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16

17 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this prisoner civil rights action 18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2) (see Compl., ECF No.1). 19 (Mot., ECF No. 55.) On November 3, 2021, the parties resolved this matter by settlement, 20 the terms of which were placed on the record during a settlement conference before the 21 Honorable Michael S. Berg, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 54.) In compliance 22 with Judge Berg’s directives, the parties filed their joint motion on January 10, 2022, 23 seeking to dismiss with prejudice this entire action. (Mot.) 24 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 25 request only by court order, or on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 27 under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt[.]” 28 1 || Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter 2 || alia, Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 275 (9th Cir. 1980) and Blue Mountain 3 || Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert denied, 361 U.S. 931 4 ||(1960)). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 5 ||a defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 6 || 236 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” 1s “prejudice to some legal 7 interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United 8 || States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal prejudice” 9 ||from: (1) “[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat of future 10 || litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; or (3) a 11 |/plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (citing 12 || Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145). 13 Because Defendants do not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal 14 || prejudice that might result from dismissal with prejudice of this action, the Court 15 || GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this matter in its entirety. 16 || (ECF No. 55.) The clerk of court shall close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 /\ yy 19 || DATED: January 12, 2022 ( itl A (pha □ 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28