Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08001/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08001-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

Grace P. Thompson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The State of Arizona; Coconino County;

City of Flagstaff; Superior Court of

Coconino County; and Deborah Young, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8001-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint against Defendants

alleging that the administration of a process server examination violated state and federal law

and Plaintiff’s civil rights. Doc. 1. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended

complaint (Doc. 9) pursuant to Rules 12(b)(5) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Docs. 10, 13. Plaintiff responded by filing a motion for voluntary dismissal

without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). Doc. 15. Defendants object to a dismissal without

prejudice. Docs. 16, 17.

Rule 41(a)(2) states that “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only

by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” The phrase “terms that the court

considers proper” provides district courts the discretion to dismiss with or without prejudice.

See Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2002). When deciding a motion to dismiss

under Rule 41(a)(2), “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

Case 3:10-cv-08001-DGC Document 18 Filed 08/26/10 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 -

States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996). Plain legal prejudice is “prejudice to some legal

interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Id. at 97. “[T]he threat of future

litigation which causes uncertainty is insufficient to establish plain legal prejudice.” Id.

at 96; see Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court may also

consider whether the plaintiff is requesting a voluntary dismissal only to avoid a near-certain

adverse ruling. See Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff believes she has meritorious claims. She seeks a voluntary dismissal on the

grounds that she filed this action with the intent of obtaining legal counsel but has been

unable to do so, that she is without the legal resources and knowledge necessary to prosecute

the case, and that she cannot financially or emotionally proceed with the case pro se.

Doc. 15. Defendants have not shown that they will suffer plain legal prejudice as a result of

dismissal without prejudice. Docs. 16, 17. The Court finds that dismissal with prejudice

would be an unduly harsh result. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s motion and

dismiss this action without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 15) is granted.

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).

3. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 10, 13) are denied as moot.

4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 26th day of August, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08001-DGC Document 18 Filed 08/26/10 Page 2 of 2