Watts v. Monroe
Filing
98
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court cannot find that the January 6, 2017 stipulation accomplished the desired end - voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs claims against two of the nine defendants herein. Accor dingly, the undersigned District Judge GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, thereby dismissing his claims against Cowell and Duvall. The Third Amended Complaint shall be filed by January 30, 2017. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 1/9/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Consent to Magistrate Judge)(rah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAMARCO WATTS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WESLEY MONROE,
LT. MINH SCOTT,
JASON COWELL,
THOMAS DUVALL,
DENNIS YOUNG,
KIM RICHARDSON,
T. HARMON,
DR. DENNIS ELS, and
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., )
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15-cv-0778-MJR-RJD
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
While confined at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, Damarco Watts filed suit in
this Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his federally-secured
constitutional rights – specifically excessive force and denial of medical care. Watts
originally sued a single Defendant – corrections officer Monroe (or “C/O Monroe”).1
The case was assigned to the Honorable J. Phil Gilbert who, on threshold review of
Watts’ pro se complaint, allowed two claims to proceed against Monroe.
Later pleadings (see, e.g., answer at Doc. 17, p. 1), “C/O Monroe” was
more fully identified as Wesley Monroe. The Clerk’s Office shall correct the
docket sheet to reflect this name, and the parties shall use the corrected name in
future filings.
1
Amended complaints followed, which added various defendants (see Doc. 31,
48). The first amended complaint added three John Doe defendants. The second
amended complaint contained nine defendants (it appears that as part of that
amendment, the John Does were replaced with named individuals). Defendants were
served and answered or responded to the second amended complaint.
In March 2016, counsel was recruited and entered for Plaintiff Watts.
The
Magistrate Judge assigned to the case (Judge Frazier) retired, and the District Judge
assigned to the case (Judge Gilbert) transferred the case off his docket. The case has
been reassigned to the undersigned District Judge and Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly.
Now before the Court is a January 6, 2017 “Stipulation of Dismissal” which seeks
to dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against two defendants – Jason Cowell
and Thomas Duvall (Doc. 96). The motion does not cite the rule under which dismissal
is sought, but it reads as if premised on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Rule
41(a) authorizes voluntary dismissals under certain circumstances.
For instance,
subsection (a)(1)(A) permits dismissal without a court order by two methods: (i) the
plaintiff files a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or
summary judgment motion; or (ii) the plaintiff files a stipulation of dismissal signed by
all parties who have appeared.
However, the rule expressly addresses dismissal of "actions." In other words,
Rule 41(a) is used to dismiss entire cases not certain parties or claims. In Taylor v.
Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857-58 (7th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
held that Rule 41(a)(2) was not the appropriate procedural vehicle for a plaintiff (who,
at the invitation of the district court, had moved to voluntarily dismiss a single claim
against a single defendant) to achieve dismissal of part of his case. Instead, the district
court should have granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint which
dropped that claim. The Seventh Circuit explained, id.:
Voluntary dismissal by court order under Rule 41(a)(2) allows the plaintiff
to dismiss “an action” on “terms that the court considers
proper.” FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(2). Although some courts have held
otherwise, we've said that Rule 41(a) “does not speak of dismissing one
claim in a suit; it speaks of dismissing ‘an action’—which is to say, the
whole case.” Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772, 777 (7th
Cir. 2001); see also Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir.
2011) (noting that “the purpose of Rule 41(a)(1) is to limit a plaintiff's
ability to dismiss an action” (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496
U.S. 384, 397, … (1990))). Berthold Types and Nelson both concerned Rule
41(a)(1)(A), which allows for voluntarily dismissal without a court order,
rather than 41(a)(2), but both provisions refer exclusively to “actions”—
which, as Berthold Types said, means the entire case…. Rule 41(a) should
be limited to dismissal of an entire action….
Instead, the court should have offered Taylor the opportunity to amend
his pleadings under Rule 15(a). Like Rule 41(a), Rule 15(a) allows a
plaintiff to amend his complaint—including by adding or dropping
parties and claims—as a matter of right in some situations and by court
order in others, and “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a)(2).
Voluntary dismissals and joint stipulations are encouraged but, given the
holding in Taylor, the Court cannot find that the January 6, 2017 stipulation
accomplished the desired end – voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against two of
the nine defendants herein. Accordingly, the undersigned District Judge GRANTS
Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, thereby dismissing his claims against
Cowell and Duvall. The Third Amended Complaint shall be filed by January 30, 2017.
Of course, filing of the new complaint will render moot any motions directed
against the current complaint, including the July 5, 2016 Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Doc. 60)
and the September 28, 2016 Pavey-based motion (Doc. 87). Once the new complaint is
on file, those motions will need to be re-filed and re-briefed, which could affect the
existing Scheduling Order (Doc. 21, as amended). The case currently has a March 9,
2017 discovery deadline, a March 30, 2017 dispositive motion deadline, and an October
2, 2017 jury trial date before the undersigned. The final pretrial conference will be held
by Judge Daly, who will set that date by separate notice, once the Third Amended
Complaint has been filed.
For the parties’ convenience, should they wish to consent to full disposition of
the case by Judge Daly (who enjoys a more flexible trial schedule and more readily can
accommodate requests for adjustments or extension of the discovery/trial schedule),
the Clerk’s Office shall provide to all counsel of record a copy of the consent form with
this Order. This is mentioned as an option only; no adverse consequences result from
declining to consent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 9, 2017.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?