Smith v. Shasta County ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 James Smith, No. 2:20-cv-01837-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Shasta County, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In January 2021, parties stipulated to and jointly requested dismissal of this action. 18 | Stipulation, ECF No. 11. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, closing the case. 19 | Minute Order, ECF No. 12. Now plaintiff, acting without his counsel, moves to reopen the case. 20 | Mot. to Reopen Case, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff alleges he continues to suffer the damages, which 21 | were the basis for his original complaint. He also appears to be raising allegations of new 22 | damages due to misrepresentations by his counsel. “A dismissal without prejudice terminates the 23 | action and concludes the rights of the parties in that particular action.” United States v. 24 | California, 507 U.S. 746, 756 (1993) (citation and internal quotations omitted). To reopen a case 25 | that has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), it appears the 26 | proper course of action is to file a new complaint, not move to reopen the prior action. Therefore, 27 | the court denies plaintiff's Motion to Reopen. 28 This order resolves ECF No. 13. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: April 12, 2021. 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 49