Langworthy v. Lev

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE GENEVA LANGWORTHY, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01149-LK Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO REOPEN DEBRA LEV et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Geneva Langworthy’s Motion to Re-Open and For Service By the US Marshall. Dkt. No. 48. On March 21, 2022, Ms. Langworthy filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, Dkt. No. 47, and the Court dismissed this action without prejudice the same day pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), see March 21, 2022 Docket Entry. More than two years later, Ms. Langworthy now seeks to reopen and amend her complaint, and also requests “that a judge from the District of Idaho or from the District of Montana be brought in to hear her case.” Dkt. No. 48 at 4–5. A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his or her action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). “Once the notice of dismissal has been filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the dismissed claims and may not address the merits of such claims or issue further orders pertaining to them.” Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Com. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 n. 4, 1079

(9th Cir. 1999)); accord United States v. Real Prop. Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, because Ms. Langworthy voluntarily dismissed her complaint without prejudice, the Court denies her request to reopen this case. Dkt. No. 48; see, e.g., Williams v. Kings Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Off., No. 1:18-CV-00416-ADA-SKO, 2023 WL 4086445, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2023). Dated this 6th day of June, 2024. A Lauren King United States District Judge