Coleman v. Robinson et al

Filing 61

ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 60 ) is granted. This case is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice. Plaintiff's pending Motions in Limine (ECF Nos. 50 , 52 ) are denied as moot. Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/3/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7

***
STEVE COLEMAN,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00310-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

8
9
10

ROBINSON, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

Pro se Plaintiff Steve Coleman, currently incarcerated in the custody of the

13

Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), sued multiple defendants under 42 U.S.C.

14

§ 1983 for events that occurred while he was incarcerated at Warm Springs Correctional

15

Center. (ECF No. 3 at 1, 3.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal

16

of this case (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff represents that Defendants do not

17

oppose his Motion. (Id. at 3.) As further explained below, the Court will grant the Motion

18

and deny the other pending motions (ECF Nos. 50, 52) as moot.

19

Plaintiff may seek dismissal of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) if—

20

as here (ECF No. 20)—the opposing party has already served an answer. Rule 41(a)(2)

21

provides “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on

22

terms that the court considers proper.” The decision to grant or deny a request pursuant

23

to Rule 41(a)(2) is within the sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewed only for

24

abuse of discretion. See Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980)

25

(citation omitted). Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) should be granted unless the

26

defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result. See Smith v.

27

Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). As no opposition has yet been filed to

28

Plaintiff’s motion, and Plaintiff represents that Defendants do not oppose dismissal of

1

this case (ECF No. 60 at 3), the Court finds good cause exists to grant Plaintiff’s Motion

2

and dismiss this case.

3
4

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 60)
is granted.

5

It is further ordered that this case is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice.

6

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s pending motions in limine (ECF Nos. 50, 52) are

7

denied as moot.

8

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

9

DATED THIS 3rd day of January 2020.

10
11

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2