Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01675/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01675-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Albert Brogdon, Jr.

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Phoenix Police Department, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1675-PHX-RCB (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff, George Albert Brogdon, Jr., an inmate in the custody of the Arizona

Department of Corrections, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

various employees of the Phoenix Police Department. (Docs. 1, 11.) Plaintiff now files a

Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 30.) Defendants filed no opposition. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion and dismiss the claims without prejudice. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a plaintiff may dismiss an action

without 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). Otherwise,

an action may be dismissed only by court order on terms that the court finds proper. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Although Defendants have filed no motions for summary judgment, they

filed answers on May 25 and June 5, 2012. (Docs. 25, 28.) 

 “A motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the district

court’s sound discretion and the court’s order will not be disturbed unless the court has

Case 2:11-cv-01675-RCB Document 31 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

abused its discretion.” Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int’l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921

(9th Cir. 1989). In deciding a motion to dismiss without prejudice, the district court must

determine whether the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the

dismissal. Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing

Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 1994); Hamilton v. Firestone Tire &

Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982).) In Westlands, the court noted that case law

does not define “legal prejudice” but that the cases focus on the rights and defenses available

to a defendant in future litigation. 100 F.3d at 97, citing 5 James W. Moore, Moore’s Federal

Practice ¶ 41.05[1] nn. 51-53 and cases cited. Legal prejudice does not include uncertainty

because a dispute is unresolved. Westlands 100 F.3d at 97. 

Defendants did not respond to the motion and, therefore, do not identify any legal

prejudice that they would experience as a result of dismissal without prejudice. The Court

will grant Plaintiff’s motion and dismiss his claims without prejudice. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 30).

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) is granted, and his claims are dismissed

without prejudice.

(3) The case is terminated, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(4) The parties will bear their own costs.

DATED this 1 day of August, 2012. st

Case 2:11-cv-01675-RCB Document 31 Filed 08/01/12 Page 2 of 2