Freeman v State of Indiana et al

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 18 MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice by Plaintiff Dimitric Freeman and DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Gladieux ONLY. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 1/16/2018. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
DIMITRIC FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF INDIANA, ALLEN COUNTY
SHERIFF DAVID GLADIEUX, CITY OF
FORT WAYNE, and DETECTIVE MARK
DESHAIES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-317-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Dimitric Freeman filed suit against the State of Indiana, Allen County Sheriff
David Gladieux, the City of Fort Wayne, and Detective Mark Deshaies on May 26, 2017, in state
court [ECF No. 4], which was removed to federal court on July 27, 2017 [ECF No. 1]. This
matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice [ECF No. 18],
filed on December 22, 2017, as to Defendant Gladieux only.
The Defendant Gladieux filed an Answer [ECF No. 13] on September 27, 2017.
Accordingly, the Court will analyze the Plaintiff’s request for dismissal with prejudice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which allows a court to consider whether it is proper
to order a party dismissed upon a plaintiff’s motion. It is within the Court’s sound discretion in
deciding whether to permit a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).
Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 23 F.3d 174, 177 (7th Cir. 1994); Tyco Labs., Inc. v. Koppers Co.,
627 F.2d 54, 56 (7th Cir. 1980). In deciding whether to grant a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss,
a court may look at a variety of factors, including: (1) a defendant’s effort and resources already

expended in preparing for trial; (2) excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the
plaintiff in prosecuting the action; (3) insufficient explanation for the need of a dismissal; and
(4) whether a summary judgment motion has been filed by defendant. Tyco Labs., 627 F.2d at
56.
In consideration of the procedural context of this case and the parties’ submissions, the
Court finds that it has the power to enter an order regarding this case and further finds that
dismissal of the action is appropriate because the Defendant has not filed summary judgment
motions against the Plaintiff, the Defendant does not object to the dismissal, and the dismissal
will be with prejudice. The context in which dismissal is sought is not adversarial and there is no
prejudice to the Defendant in allowing the dismissal.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [ECF
No. 18] and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Gladieux
only.
SO ORDERED on January 16, 2018.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2