Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05440/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05440-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.03\freeman.vol.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPUTY GUSTIN, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-5440 MJJ (PR)

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 136, 139, 142, 143)

Plaintiff, formerly a California state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter came before the Court for a pretrial conference on March 6, 2008

with appearances by plaintiff and by defense counsel. At the conference, plaintiff indicated that he

wished to voluntarily dismiss this case, and defense counsel indicated that they had no objection to

such dismissal. After the Court explained to plaintiff that such a dismissal may preclude him

from raising his claims in the future, plaintiff indicated that he understood and that he

nevertheless wished to dismiss this case. 

After service of an answer or summary judgment motion, the plaintiff must obtain

court approval to dismiss: "The action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instances save

upon the order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper." 

Fed. R. Civ P. 41(a)(2). The court must exercise its discretion to determine whether to allow

dismissal at all and if so, whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice and what

terms and conditions, if any, ought to be imposed. See Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber

Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). If, as is the case here, the plaintiff does not

Case 3:03-cv-05440-MJJ Document 157 Filed 03/10/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

These attorneys declined appointment after meeting with plaintiff.

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.03\freeman.vol.wpd 2

specifically request dismissal without prejudice, the district court may decide in its own

discretion whether to dismiss the action with or without prejudice and need not first seek the

plaintiff’s consent. Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2002). .

Plaintiff stated at the pretrial conference that he wished to withdraw the case because he was

unable to present witnesses or evidence in support of his claims. Plaintiff then made general

allegations that his witnesses had been threatened and evidence had been stolen. Plaintiff has not

specified the names of any threatened witnesses, who threatened them, the date or time of such

threats, or what evidence had been stolen. Moreover, the January 16, 2008 pretrial order gave

plaintiff until January 25, 2008 to identify the witnesses and exhibits he wished to present, and to

notify the Court if he wished to have the Clerk issue or the United States Marshall serve subpoenas

on any witnesses. Plaintiff did not submit a witness or exhibit list until January 29 and February 1,

2008, and he never submitted a request for a subpoena. The February 13, 2008 pretrial order gave

plaintiff until February 22, 2008 to submit any proposed writ or other order to the Court to ensure

the presence of any incarcerated witness at trial, but plaintiff never submitted such a request. 

Plaintiff also did not indicate to the Court prior to the pretrial conference that any witnesses were

being threatened. 

The Court also notes that there is no good cause for continuing this matter any longer. This

case has been pending for over four years, including nearly two years since the resolution of

dispositive motions. In addition, plaintiff has been out of custody for some of the time while

this case was pending, including in the weeks prior to the pretrial conference.. The Court

located and appointed pro bono counsel for plaintiff, and thereafter contacted several other

attorneys for possible representation of plaintiff on a pro bono basis after such counsel

withdrew.1

 Plaintiff had ample time and resources to prepare for trial in this relatively simple

case, involving a single incident of the alleged use of excessive force against him. 

In light of plaintiff’s request to voluntarily dismiss this case, his indication that he

understood the consequences of such dismissal, his failure to substantiate or timely raise his

Case 3:03-cv-05440-MJJ Document 157 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.03\freeman.vol.wpd 3

allegations of threats to witnesses and stolen evidence, defendants’ lack of objection to the dismissal,

and for the reasons set forth by the Court at the pre-trial hearing on March 6, 2008, plaintiff’s

request for voluntary dismissal is GRANTED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED under Rule 41(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As plaintiff requested dismissal on the eve of trial, the

Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is warranted due to the substantial time and expense to

defendants in defending this case and preparing for a trial. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 136, 139, 142 & 143.

The clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 3/10/2008

_____________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05440-MJJ Document 157 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 3