Weinschenk v. Central Intelligence Agency ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHARLES WEINSCHENK,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 20-2510 (CKK)
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(November 9, 2021)
On June 24, 2021, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s pro se action “in its entirety for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.” Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 26, at 5. In response, Plaintiff filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal order on June 30, 2021. See Pl.’s Mot., ECF
No. 29, at 1. On July 12, 2021, however, Plaintiff then filed an “Expedited Request for Dismissal.”
Therein, Plaintiff requested a voluntary dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(2), based on his desire to “voluntarily cede th[is] matter.” Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 30, at 1. In
that same motion, Plaintiff also requested that the Court “dismiss[] the action prior to ruling on the
pending . . . Request for Reconsideration.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff’s [29] Motion for Reconsideration and [30] Expedited Request for Dismissal are
presently pending before the Court. First, the Court will deny the [29] Motion for Reconsideration
as moot. This ruling comports with Plaintiff’s decision to “voluntarily cede” his position in this
case, id. at 1, and his corresponding request for the Court not to rule on his motion for
reconsideration, but instead deny that motion as moot, see id. at 2 (The “Court’s indulgence is
requested in denying [the] pending motion as moot at the plaintiff’s request.”).
1
Second, the Court will also deny Plaintiff’s “Expedited Request for Dismissal.” Again,
this motion asks the Court for a voluntary dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(2). As a general matter, courts grant dismissals under Rule 41(a)(2) “unless the defendant
would suffer prejudice other than the prospect of a second lawsuit or some tactical disadvantage.”
Conafay v. Wyeth Labs., 793 F.2d 350, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Nonetheless, courts evaluating Rule
41(a)(2) motions also consider “the adequacy of the plaintiff’s explanation for voluntary dismissal”
and “the stage of the litigation at the time the motion to dismiss is made.” Mitchell v. U.S. Bank
Nat’l Ass’n for Wells Fargo Asset Sec. Corp. Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR4,
293 F. Supp. 3d 209, 213 (D.D.C. 2018). Here, Plaintiff requests a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal order
after the Court has already dismissed this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Mem.
Op. & Order, ECF No. 26, at 5. And Plaintiff offers no plausible explanation why a subsequent
Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal order would be necessary or appropriate at this juncture. Under these
circumstances, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s request for a voluntary dismissal order is
warranted.
Dated: November 9, 2021
/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
2