Clark v. Brown
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-09230
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Clark v. Brown, Judge Freeman granted Clark’s request to voluntarily end his civil-rights case, dismissing it without prejudice.
Alphonso Ramon Clark and the defendants, including Dr. Molly Brown; the action was dismissed without prejudice and the file was closed.
What happened
In Clark v. Brown, Alphonso Ramon Clark, representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law against Dr. Molly Brown and other defendants. The court had dismissed his original complaint but allowed him to amend it and later extended his deadline.
Clark then filed a document titled “Motion to dismiss without prejudice.” The court treated it as a request to voluntarily dismiss the case.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the request, dismissed the action without prejudice, directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, and closed the file.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Brown · No. 5:21-cv-09230
- Beth Freeman
- May 18, 2022
Background
Alphonso Ramon Clark, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Molly Brown and other defendants. On April 5, 2022, the court dismissed the complaint but allowed Clark to file an amended complaint. On May 9, 2022, the court granted Clark’s request for more time.
Request for dismissal
On May 13, 2022, Clark filed a one-page document titled “Motion to dismiss without prejudice.” The court construed that filing as a request for voluntary dismissal. The court explained that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Unless the notice states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning the dismissal itself does not bar refiling.
Ruling
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Clark’s request for voluntary dismissal. The action was dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file, and the order terminated Docket No. 7. The court did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.