Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00334/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00334-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Allen Oliver, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Tucson, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-334-DCB-DTF

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendants filed two motions to dismiss (Docs. 48, 50) and the Court ordered Plaintiff

to respond to the pending motions by March 5, and March 12, 2012 (Docs. 49, 52). On

February 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, asserting

he would not have access to a law library or a pen until after his release from prison on April

5, 2012. (Doc. 54.) Some of the defendants filed a response, objecting to a dismissal without

prejudice, particularly because Plaintiff had filed and dismissed a prior suit against them in

state court. (Doc. 54.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 allows a Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his case

without a court order if the opposing parties have not yet filed an answer or motion for

summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). That is the procedural status of this case.

However, the rule further provides that the dismissal operates as an adjudication on the

Case 4:11-cv-00334-DCB-DTF Document 58 Filed 06/14/12 Page 1 of 3
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 -

merits (a dismissal with prejudice) if “the plaintiff has previously dismissed any federal- or

state-court action based on or including the same claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). 

Plaintiff filed a case in Pima County Superior Court on December 8, 2010 (Doc. 50-1

at 8), arising out of the same factual basis as the Amended Complaint pending before this

Court (Doc. 32). In the state court case, he named as defendants Reay’s Ranch Investor’s,

Gordon Reay, Tracy Collette, Rod Howard and Brian Couch, alleging malicious prosecution,

slander, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at 8-19.) While a

motion to dismiss by the defendants was pending, Plaintiff sought and was granted dismissal

of that matter without prejudice. (Id. at 21-22.) Because Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed

a prior action including claims in this suit (negligent and intentional infliction of emotional

distress and malicious prosecution) and the suits are based on the same factual premise and

claims generally, a voluntary dismissal at this stage would be with prejudice under the rules.

In light of the governing rule, the Court issued an order on April 27, 2012, allowing

Plaintiff to withdraw his motion to dismiss and respond to the Defendants’ pending motions

to dismiss. (Doc. 56.) The Order informed Plaintiff that if he did not respond by the set date,

May 29, the Magistrate Judge would recommend dismissal of this case with prejudice. That

Order was returned as undeliverable because Plaintiff had been released. (Doc. 57.) He did

not file a notice of change of address as is required by LRCiv 83.3(d) and directed in the

Court’s service order. (Doc. 14 at 1-2.)

RECOMMENDATION

Because Plaintiff has previously dismissed a state court action based on or including

the same claim(s), Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal should be entered with prejudice pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B). Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 54) and

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE the Amended Complaint (Doc. 32).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file

written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report and

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. If

Case 4:11-cv-00334-DCB-DTF Document 58 Filed 06/14/12 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 11-334-TUCDCB.

DATED this 14th day of June, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00334-DCB-DTF Document 58 Filed 06/14/12 Page 3 of 3