(PC) Smiley v. Schultz

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01626
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY JEROME SMILEY, No. 2:24-cv-01626-KJM-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SCHULTZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At plaintiff’s request the court dismissed his case, ECF No. 15, but he has now 19 asked the court to re-open it. ECF No. 16. He has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining 20 order. ECF No. 17. Both requests must be denied. 21 On August 19, 2024, plaintiff asked the court to dismiss his case. ECF No. 14. 22 Accordingly, the court dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) on 23 August 30, 2024. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff’s request for dismissal and the court’s grant of that 24 request closed the case and deprived the court of jurisdiction over the dismissed claims. Energy 25 Trading and Mktg., LLC v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Once the notice of 26 dismissal has been filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the dismissed claims and may 27 not address the merits of such claims or issue further orders pertaining to them.”). Thus, if 28 plaintiff has changed his mind and wishes to pursue the claims he raised in this case, the proper 1 || course of action is for plaintiff to file a new case. Elgen Mfg. Co. v. Mac Arthur Co., No. 23-cv- 2 | 04929-JST, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146809, at *9-11 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2024) (collecting 3 || cases). 4 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the court deny plaintiffs October 23, 5 || 2024 motion to reopen (ECF No. 16), close the case, and direct the Clerk of Court to 6 || administratively terminate the pending motion for temporary injunction (ECF No. 17). 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 12 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 13 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 15 || Dated: March 4, 2025 Zot T Win LA : EDMUND F. BRENNAN 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28