Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05585/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05585-21/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 The e-mail itself requests that it be read into the record. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY CAMPBELL, et. al. , )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et. al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV- F-04-5585 AWI TAG

ORDER DISMISSING AND

CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF

PLAINTIFFS’S REQUESTS

FOR DISMISSAL

This case was scheduled for a jury trial on March 13, 2007, with the parties to be present

at 8:30 a.m. On March 13, 2007, the Court received an e-mail from Plaintiff Anthony Campbell. 

In the e-mail, which the Court read into the record, Plaintiff Campbell requested and moved the 1

Court to dismiss his case because inter alia of his estimation of the length of trial, the stress and

strain that the trial would have on his family, and that the relief he wants is unavailable through

this action. The e-mail was sent at 7:03 a.m. on March 13, 2007. Plaintiff Campbell did not

appear when the case was called by the Court on the morning of March 13, 2007. After receipt

of the e-mail, Plaintiff Sandra Jeffcoat also requested that her case be dismissed. Defendants

made no objections and made no comments regarding Plaintiffs’s requested dismissal. The

Court granted Plaintiffs’s requested dismissals and did so with prejudice. The Court now files

this order memorializing the dismissals.

Case 1:04-cv-05585-AWI-TAG Document 148 Filed 03/13/07 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

Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision of this rule, an action shall

not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon

such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been

pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon the defendant of the plaintiff's

motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the defendant's

objection unless the counterclaim can remain pending for independent

adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal

under this paragraph is without prejudice

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2).

In examining a request for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), a district court “must determine

whether the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice asa result of the dismissal.” 

Westland Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9t h Cir. 1996). “A district court should

grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it

will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9t h Cir.

2001). Rule 41(a)(2) does not forbid dismissal of a plaintiff’s suit where a plaintiff is proceeding

pro se. See Williams v. Peralta Cmty. College Dist., 227 F.R.D. 538 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (granting

a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal where the plaintiff was pro se); Boles v. City of Manzanita, 2004 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 29335, *1 (D. Or. 2004) (same).

Here, the Plaintiffs requested and moved the Court to dismiss their respective cases. 

Based on the e-mail, the Court granted Plaintiff Campbell’s requested dismissal, and based on

her oral motion in open court, then granted Plaintiff Jeffcoat’s requested dismissal. The

Defendants made no comments and no objections to either Plaintiffs’s request and the Court sees

no prejudice to Defendants by granting Plaintiffs’s requested dismissals. However, the Court

was prepared to proceed to jury trial on March 13, 2007, and a jury venire had been summoned

and was waiting to be called into court. Due to the advanced stage of this case and the resources

expended up to this point on this case, dismissal of Plaintiffs’s respective claims is with

prejudice. 

Case 1:04-cv-05585-AWI-TAG Document 148 Filed 03/13/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This case is DISMISSED in its entirety as per the Plaintiffs’s requests for dismissal;

2. Dismissal of this case is with prejudice; and

3. The Clerk is ordered to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05585-AWI-TAG Document 148 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 3