Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662-17/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORINA MAREZ, as guardian ad litem 

for E.R., K.R., and S.R., minors; and 

RUBY RODRIGUES, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, 

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, CORRECT CARE 

SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Kansas limited 

liability company, and DR. CHARLES 

EDWARDS, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS 

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS AND 

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERRIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT WITH PREJUDICE AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT 

TO TERMINATE THEM FROM THE CASE

(Doc. No. 102)

On August 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a request for voluntary dismissal of defendants

County of Stanislaus and Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, with prejudice, representing 

that these defendants had complied with the terms of a settlement reached. (Doc. No. 102.) 

Defendants County of Stanislaus and Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department have previously 

filed an answer in this action. (Doc. No. 71.) Accordingly, plaintiffs may no longer voluntarily 

dismiss them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), but must file a motion for voluntary 

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). Unlike a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of dismissal, a Rule 41(a)(2) motion 

requires court approval. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 

(9th Cir. 1997).

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 103 Filed 08/23/16 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

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. Waller v. Fin. Corp. 

of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 

F.2d 143, 145–46 (9th Cir. 1982). “Legal prejudice” means “prejudice to some legal interest, 

some legal claim, some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97

(9th Cir. 1996). A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) normally is without prejudice, as explicitly 

stated in that rule. However, a dismissal with prejudice so that claims cannot be reasserted in 

another federal suit strengthens the conclusion that the dismissal causes no legal prejudice and is

not an abuse of discretion. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001). In this 

matter, defendants County of Stanislaus and Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department will suffer 

no discernable legal prejudice and plaintiff furthermore requests that the dismissal be with 

prejudice. Defendants County of Stanislaus and Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department have 

purportedly complied with the terms of a settlement agreement reached with plaintiff. The court 

therefore finds that dismissal of the action with prejudice is appropriate. Accordingly, defendants 

County of Stanislaus and Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department are dismissed with prejudice 

and the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate them from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 103 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 2