Williams v. Kings County District Attorney's Office et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 9 Motion to Reopen Case signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/16/2023. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
AHKEEM DESHAVIER WILLIAMS,
9
10
11
12
13

Case No. 1:18-cv-00416-ADA-SKO

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE

v.
KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, et al.,

(Doc. 9)

Defendants.
/

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On March 27, 2018, Plaintiff Ahkeem Deshavier Williams, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of his prosecution by the
Kings County District Attorney’s Office and defense by the Public Defender and their alleged failure
to provide video evidence. (See Doc. 1.)
On July 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Motion” indicating that the video evidence had been
located and voluntarily dismissing his case without prejudice. (Doc. 6.) The Court closed the case
on July 16, 2018. (Doc. 7).
Almost five years later, on June 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Motion-Re-Open Case”
indicating that “they still refuse to give me the video.” (Doc. 9 at 2.) While the Court acknowledges
Plaintiff is now willing to prosecute his case, a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 requires no action
on the part of the court and divests the court of jurisdiction upon the filing of the notice of voluntary
dismissal. United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, 545 F.3d
1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008); Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049
(9th Cir. 2001) (“Once the notice of dismissal has been filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over

1 the dismissed claims and may not address the merits of such claims or issue further orders pertaining
2 to them.”). Therefore, when Plaintiff filed the notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule
3 41(a)(1) on July 12, 2018, the case was terminated and this Court was divested of jurisdiction over
4 Plaintiff’s case. As Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice, he is free to file
5 a new complaint with the allegations set forth in his “Motion-Re-Open Case.” However, Plaintiff’s
6 request to reopen this case (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
7

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed

8 on the docket for this matter.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated:
12

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

June 16, 2023

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2