Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 8, 2021

Koenig

Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Docket
4:21-cv-08522
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In re Koenig: Judge Hamilton denied plaintiff’s motion and dismissed the case without prejudice after plaintiff sought voluntary dismissal.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, a Missouri state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, was affected by the dismissal of this case without prejudice and by the denial of the motion identified as Docket No. 1. The court also directed that any request concerning his economic impact payment be filed in the appropriate district in Missouri.

What happened

In re Koenig involved a Missouri state prisoner who filed a civil action without a lawyer. He later said he had not intended to open a new case and asked to voluntarily dismiss it.

The court denied the motion identified as Docket No. 1 and dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). No filing fee was due. The court also denied any request to file a motion in the separate, closed case Scholl v. Mnuchin.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the dismissal on December 8, 2021. The court said that any request for relief concerning the plaintiff’s economic impact payment had to be filed in the appropriate district in Missouri.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Koenig · No. 4:21-cv-08522
Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Date
Dec. 8, 2021

Background

The plaintiff, identified in the opinion as a Missouri state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil action in the Northern District of California. He later filed a notice stating that he had not sought to open a new case and wanted to voluntarily dismiss the action.

Court’s ruling

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion identified as Docket No. 1. It then dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), which governs voluntary dismissals. The court also stated that no fee was due.

The court separately denied any request by the plaintiff to file a motion in Scholl v. Mnuchin, 494 F. Supp. 3d 661 (N.D. Cal. 2020), and noted that case was closed. It stated that any request for relief concerning the plaintiff’s economic impact payment had to be filed in the appropriate district in Missouri.

Effect of the order

The order ended this case without prejudice. The opinion did not decide the merits of any underlying claim. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order on December 8, 2021.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.