Smith v. Shasta County

E.D. California

Smith v. Shasta County

DecidedApril 12, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-01837

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Shasta County (Smith v. Shasta County) 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

Smith v. Shasta County, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 James Smith, No. 2:20-cv-01837-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Shasta County, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In January 2021, parties stipulated to and jointly requested dismissal of this action. 18 | Stipulation, ECF No. 11. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, closing the case. 19 | Minute Order, ECF No. 12. Now plaintiff, acting without his counsel, moves to reopen the case. 20 | Mot. to Reopen Case, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff alleges he continues to suffer the damages, which 21 | were the basis for his original complaint. He also appears to be raising allegations of new 22 | damages due to misrepresentations by his counsel. “A dismissal without prejudice terminates the 23 | action and concludes the rights of the parties in that particular action.” United States v. 24 | California, 507 U.S. 746, 756 (1993) (citation and internal quotations omitted). To reopen a case 25 | that has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), it appears the 26 | proper course of action is to file a new complaint, not move to reopen the prior action. Therefore, 27 | the court denies plaintiff's Motion to Reopen. 28 This order resolves ECF No. 13.

1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: April 12, 2021. 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 James Smith, No. 2:20-cv-01837-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Shasta County, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In January 2021, parties stipulated to and jointly requested dismissal of this action. 18 | Stipulation, ECF No. 11. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, closing the case. 19 | Minute Order, ECF No. 12. Now plaintiff, acting without his counsel, moves to reopen the case. 20 | Mot. to Reopen Case, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff alleges he continues to suffer the damages, which 21 | were the basis for his original complaint. He also appears to be raising allegations of new 22 | damages due to misrepresentations by his counsel. “A dismissal without prejudice terminates the 23 | action and concludes the rights of the parties in that particular action.” United States v. 24 | California, 507 U.S. 746, 756 (1993) (citation and internal quotations omitted). To reopen a case 25 | that has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), it appears the 26 | proper course of action is to file a new complaint, not move to reopen the prior action. Therefore, 27 | the court denies plaintiff's Motion to Reopen. 28 This order resolves ECF No. 13.

1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: April 12, 2021. 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Shasta County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-shasta-county-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack