Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02195/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02195-0/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 1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-2195 JF (PVT)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

(JFLC2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALVION S. THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-2195 JF (PVT)

ORDER1 DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action on May 27, 2005, and on the same date

requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis and requested appointment of counsel. Those

motions were denied. On August 16, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for voluntary

dismissal of the action without prejudice. On October 26, 2005, Plaintiff filed a one-page

document requesting that the action be reopened and that Plaintiff be permitted to proceed in

forma pauperis. On November 4, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case

upon the condition that he pay the filing fee, and denied his renewed application to proceed in

forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 19, 2006 and paid the $250

Case 5:05-cv-02195-JF Document 35 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-2195 JF (PVT)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

(JFLC2)

filing fee on January 25, 2006. Plaintiff filed proofs of service with respect to Defendants San

Jose Police Department and the California Department of Corrections shortly thereafter.

On February 22, 2006, Defendant City of San Jose, erroneously sued as the “San Jose

Police Department,” filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion was set for hearing on April 28, 2006. 

The Department of Corrections did not file a motion or answer. 

On February 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, which motion was

declined by the Clerk of the Court the following day. Plaintiff filed opposition to Defendant

City’s motion on March 3, 2006, but failed to serve a copy of the opposition upon Defendant

City; as a result, the City did not file a reply.

On April 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the action, stating

that he now believes that the action properly should be pursued in state court, and requesting a

refund of his $250 filing fee. Plaintiff failed to serve a copy of the motion upon Defendant City;

as a result, the City did not file a response to the motion.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a plaintiff is entitled to dismiss an

action without leave of court at any time before the defendant answers or files a motion for

summary judgment. Such dismissal is without prejudice, except that such dismissal operates as

an adjudication on the merits “when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of

the United States or of any state an action based on or including the same claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a). It is not clear whether Plaintiff’s prior dismissal of this action comes within this latter

provision, in light of the fact that the action subsequently was reopened. Because Plaintiff

wishes to dismiss the instant action in order to pursue it in state court, the Court concludes that

dismissing the instant action on the merits would be unjust. Accordingly, the Court will grant

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the instant action without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing of the same

claims in state court. The Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request for a refund of his $250 filing

fee; Plaintiff has not cited, and the Court has not discovered, any authority that would permit

such a refund.

Case 5:05-cv-02195-JF Document 35 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-2195 JF (PVT)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

(JFLC2)

ORDER

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal of the instant action is GRANTED as

set forth above;

(2) Defendant City’s motion to dismiss is MOOT; 

(3) The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

DATED: May 1, 2006

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02195-JF Document 35 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 05-2195 JF (PVT)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Plaintiff pro se:

Alvion S. Thompson

96 Almaden Street # 305

San Jose, CA 95113

Alvion S. Thompson

1352 Old Rose Pl.

San Jose, CA 95128

Counsel for Defendant City of San Jose:

Michael J. Dodson

Office of the City Attorney

City of San Jose

200 East Santa Clara Street

San Jose, CA 95113-1905 

Case 5:05-cv-02195-JF Document 35 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 4