(PC) Montgomery v. People of the State of California

E.D. California

(PC) Montgomery v. People of the State of California

DecidedFebruary 11, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-01348

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Montgomery v. People of the State of California ((PC) Montgomery v. People of the State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Montgomery v. People of the State of California, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONLYNN S. MONTGOMERY, No. 2:24-cv-01348-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendants. 16

17 Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on May 13, 2024. ECF No. 1. He requested that the 18 action be dismissed on June 7, 2024. ECF No. 4. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court filed a notice 19 of dismissal and closed the case. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff now asks the court to reopen the case. 20 ECF No. 6. 21 “A dismissal without prejudice terminates the action and concludes the rights of the 22 parties in that particular action.” United States v. California, 507 U.S. 756, 756 (1993) (internal 23 quotation marks omitted). Once a plaintiff files for voluntary dismissal, the case ends, leaving the 24 parties “as though no action had been brought.” United States v. 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 25 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The proper course for a plaintiff 26 who has voluntarily dismissed his case but later wishes to proceed on those claims is to file a new 27 complaint, opening a new case. Smith v. Shasta Cty., 2:20-cv-01837-KJM-DMC, 2021 U.S. Dist. 28 1 || LEXIS 70604, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021). 2 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to reopen the case (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. If plaintiff 3 || wishes to proceed on the claims he raised in this action, he must do so by initiating a new action. 4 | SO ORDERED. 5 6 | Dated: February 10, 2025 Slit Mma EDMUND F. BRENNAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONLYNN S. MONTGOMERY, No. 2:24-cv-01348-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendants. 16

17 Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on May 13, 2024. ECF No. 1. He requested that the 18 action be dismissed on June 7, 2024. ECF No. 4. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court filed a notice 19 of dismissal and closed the case. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff now asks the court to reopen the case. 20 ECF No. 6. 21 “A dismissal without prejudice terminates the action and concludes the rights of the 22 parties in that particular action.” United States v. California, 507 U.S. 756, 756 (1993) (internal 23 quotation marks omitted). Once a plaintiff files for voluntary dismissal, the case ends, leaving the 24 parties “as though no action had been brought.” United States v. 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 25 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The proper course for a plaintiff 26 who has voluntarily dismissed his case but later wishes to proceed on those claims is to file a new 27 complaint, opening a new case. Smith v. Shasta Cty., 2:20-cv-01837-KJM-DMC, 2021 U.S. Dist. 28 1 || LEXIS 70604, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021). 2 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to reopen the case (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. If plaintiff 3 || wishes to proceed on the claims he raised in this action, he must do so by initiating a new action. 4 | SO ORDERED. 5 6 | Dated: February 10, 2025 Slit Mma EDMUND F. BRENNAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Montgomery v. People of the State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-montgomery-v-people-of-the-state-of-california-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack