Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05585/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05585-9/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY CAMPBELL, SANDRA )

JEFFCOAT, NOLAN CAMPBELL, )

MARGARET CAMPBELL, ANTHONY )

CAMPBELL, JR., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, MARK )

CHARMLEY, SCOTT CARVEL, )

ORBIN LOVE, THOMAS PRYOR, )

JAMES JAMES, ERIC MATLOCK, and )

DOES 1-10 Individually and in their )

Official Capacities, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV F 04-5585 AWI TAG

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’S

STIPULATED DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro per. On March 13, 2006, orders were issued whereby

Plaintiffs’s counsel was terminated and each Plaintiff was to proceeded pro per. On April 18,

2006, a stipulation for dismissal of claims with prejudice in exchange for a waiver of costs was

filed by Plaintiffs Nolan Campbell and Margaret Campbell and Defendants. The Stipulation is

signed by Nolan Campbell, Margaret Campbell and defense counsel. 

On May 1, 2006, the Court received an opposition to the stipulation of dismissal by pro

per Plaintiff Anthony Campbell. In the opposition, Campbell objects to the stipulation on the

grounds that defense counsel improperly contacted Nolan and Margaret Campbell in an attempt

Case 1:04-cv-05585-AWI-TAG Document 39 Filed 05/09/06 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 daw 2

to disrupt the proceedings. Anthony Campbell argues that defense counsel improperly offered

legal advice and improperly contacted Nolan Campbell and Margaret Campbell after Anthony

Campbell stated his intent to find retained counsel. Anthony Campbell requests that the Court

allow him to represent all plaintiffs. Anthony Campbell requests that the stipulation for

dismissal be denied.

Although the stipulation is not so entitled, the Court construes it as a motion for dismissal

under Rule 41(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) reads:

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). The purpose of the rule is to permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action

without prejudice so long as the defendant will not be prejudiced.” Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v.

Armilla Int’l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989). The district court “must determine

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

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

gant 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 (9th Cir.

2001).

Here, Defendants have not filed a counterclaim and are agreeable to the dismissal. The

rule is silent as to oppositions from co-plaintiffs. Although neither Nolan Campbell nor

Margaret Campbell were represented by retained counsel upon signing the April 17, 2006

stipulation of dismissal, the rule 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 Rule 42(a)(2) dismissal where plaintiff was pro se); Boles v. City of Manzanita,

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29335 at *1 (D. Or. 2004) (same).

Case 1:04-cv-05585-AWI-TAG Document 39 Filed 05/09/06 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 daw 3

Anthony Campbell has filed an opposition, but the basis for his objection is simply that

Nolan Campbell and Margaret Campbell did not have retained counsel and that Anthony

Campbell should be allowed to represent all plaintiffs. Anthony Campbell’s opposition is not

well taken. First, Anthony Campbell’s claims and causes of action are separate from Nolan and

Margaret Campbell’s claims and causes of action. Second, as Nolan and Margaret Campbell

were representing themselves, defense counsel can communicate with them. Third, and more

importantly, Anthony Campbell cannot represent Nolan or Margaret Campbell in legal

proceedings. Litigants in federal court have a statutory right to choose to act as their own

counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own

behalf, that privilege is personal to him. McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th

Cir.1966). “A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other

than himself [or herself].” Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir.1962). Nonattorney litigants may not represent others. Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876

(9th Cir.1997); Church of the New Testament v. U.S., 783 F.2d 771, 774 (9th Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. As per the stipulation, the claims of Nolan Campbell and Margaret Campbell are

dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2); and

2. Anthony Campbell’s request to represent other Plaintiffs is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05585-AWI-TAG Document 39 Filed 05/09/06 Page 3 of 3