Thomas v. Smith
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-05617
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Thomas v. Smith, Judge Corley granted Thomas’s withdrawal motion, dismissed the case without prejudice, and denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion as moot.
Hilbert Thomas’s case was dismissed without prejudice. Oak Smith, S. Sanchez, and J. Munger did not obtain dismissal with prejudice, and their summary-judgment motion was denied as moot.
What happened
Thomas v. Smith was a civil-rights case brought by Hilbert Thomas, a California prisoner representing himself, against three officials at San Quentin State Prison. The case proceeded under a federal civil-rights law, and only Thomas’s retaliation claim remained after the court dismissed his other claims.
The defendants asked for summary judgment on the retaliation claim. Instead of responding to that motion, Thomas asked to withdraw the case, and the defendants agreed to the dismissal but requested that it be permanent.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley granted Thomas’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning it was not permanently barred on that basis. Because the case was dismissed, Judge Corley denied the defendants’ summary-judgment motion as moot.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Smith · No. 3:23-cv-05617
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 27, 2025
Background
Hilbert Thomas, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Oak Smith, Correctional Officer S. Sanchez, and Correctional Officer J. Munger of San Quentin State Prison. The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims in Thomas’s First Amended Complaint except a retaliation claim.
The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claim. Rather than oppose that motion, Thomas filed a motion to withdraw the § 1983 action. The defendants filed a motion stating that they did not oppose Thomas’s request, but they sought dismissal with prejudice.
Court’s analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action by court order when the requirements for dismissal without a court order are not met. Because the defendants had filed a summary-judgment motion and the parties had not filed a stipulation signed by all parties who had appeared, the court determined that Rule 41(a)(2) governed.
The court explained that a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is generally without prejudice unless the defendants show legal prejudice. Legal prejudice means harm to a legal interest, claim, argument, right, or defense—not merely uncertainty, inconvenience, the possibility of another lawsuit, or a tactical advantage for the plaintiff.
The defendants did not show that dismissal without prejudice would cause them to lose rights or defenses, such as a federal forum, a jury trial, or a statute-of-limitations defense. The court therefore concluded that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Thomas’s motion to withdraw and DISMISSED the case without prejudice. In light of that dismissal, the court DENIED the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as moot. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.