Thompson v. Berg

D. Kansas

Thompson v. Berg

DecidedMay 25, 2021

Docket2:06-cv-02460

StatusUnknown

This text of Thompson v. Berg (Thompson v. Berg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Berg, (D. Kan. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Sterling Thompson et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 06-2460-JWL

Jerry Berg et al.,

Defendants. MEMORANDUM & ORDER In July 2007, the court entered judgment in this civil case following plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i). Plaintiff Sterling Thompson, appearing pro se, has now filed a motion for hearing (doc. 31) in which he seeks a status conference regarding issues in the case. The court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. Once a Rule 41(a)(1) 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.” Netwig v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 375 F.3d 1009, 1011 (10th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotations omitted). As the Circuit explained in Netwig, “the filing of a Rule 41(a)(1)(i) notice itself closes the file” and leaves “the parties as though no action had been brought.” Id. The court, then, cannot take any action on the motion filed by plaintiff.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff’s motion for hearing (doc. 31) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 25th day of May, 2021, at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ John W. Lungstrum John W. Lungstrum United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Sterling Thompson et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 06-2460-JWL

Jerry Berg et al.,

Defendants. MEMORANDUM & ORDER In July 2007, the court entered judgment in this civil case following plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i). Plaintiff Sterling Thompson, appearing pro se, has now filed a motion for hearing (doc. 31) in which he seeks a status conference regarding issues in the case. The court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. Once a Rule 41(a)(1) 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.” Netwig v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 375 F.3d 1009, 1011 (10th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotations omitted). As the Circuit explained in Netwig, “the filing of a Rule 41(a)(1)(i) notice itself closes the file” and leaves “the parties as though no action had been brought.” Id. The court, then, cannot take any action on the motion filed by plaintiff.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff’s motion for hearing (doc. 31) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 25th day of May, 2021, at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ John W. Lungstrum John W. Lungstrum United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Thompson v. Berg, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-berg-ksd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack