Johnson v. City of Perrysburg et al
Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for reconsideration. Related Doc # 25 . Judge James G. Carr on 7/7/15.(C,D)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case No. 3:14CV02008
P. Martin Aubry, et al.,
Shavell Johnson brought this action against defendants Perrysburg Township (the
“Township”), Dustin Glass, a patrolman for the Township, the City of Perrysburg (the
“City”), and P. Martin Aubry, the City’s prosecutor. Johnson alleges the defendants
violated his constitutional rights after an appellate court vacated his conviction for
violating a protection order in Perrysburg Municipal Court after he already served a term
Pending is Johnson’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 25). For the reasons stated
below, I agree that I no longer have jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, I overrule
Johnson’s motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff Johnson filed a complaint against the defendants alleging violations of
his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, and abuse
of process. (Doc. 1).
On February 25, 2015, Johnson moved to voluntarily dismiss his complaint
against both the City and Aubry with prejudice. (Doc. 21). All three parties stipulated to
dismissal with prejudice and I granted the motion. (Doc. 23).
On March 30, 2015, Johnson’s attorney moved to dismiss his claims against the
Township and Glass without prejudice and to withdraw as Johnson’s counsel. I granted
both motions. (Doc. 24).
On May 5, 2015, Johnson, proceeding pro se, moved for reconsideration of his
claims against all four defendants. (Doc. 25).
Defendants City of Perrysburg and Aubry
A plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his or her complaint with prejudice under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 cannot move for reconsideration because “a voluntary dismissal with
prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits and has a res judicata effect.”
Warfield v. AlliedSignal TBS Holdings, Inc., 267 F.3d 538, 542 (6th Cir. 2001). The Sixth
Circuit declared that if the plaintiff’s “dismissal of [the defendant] with prejudice was
indeed voluntary, then the dismissal is final under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) and the case is over.”
Johnson voluntarily dismissed his complaint against both the City and Aubrey
with prejudice. (Doc. 23). Johnson cannot now move for reconsideration because his case
against the City and Aubry is over. Accordingly, I overrule his motion to reconsider as to
defendants the City and Aubry.
Defendants Perrysburg Township and Glass
Similarly, a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his or her complaint without
prejudice under F.R.C.P. 41 cannot bring a motion for reconsideration because the court
that dismissed the complaint no longer has jurisdiction over the case. Ganley v. Mazda
Motor of Am., Inc., 367 Fed. App’x 616, 623 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Smith v. Potter, 513
F.3d 781, 782-83 (7th Cir. 2008)).
Once the court grants the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal, it cannot issue any
subsequent orders or rule on the merits of the case because it no longer has jurisdiction.
Ganley, supra, 367 Fed. App’x at 623 (citing Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., LLC v.
Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001)). When a case is voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice, the court will only have jurisdiction over the case again if the plaintiff
re-files the complaint.
Johnson voluntarily dismissed his complaint under F.R.C.P. 41, and, as a result, I
no longer have jurisdiction over the case. (Doc. 24). Without jurisdiction, I cannot rule on
any other motions. Accordingly, I overrule Johnson’s motion for reconsideration as to the
Township and Glass.
Since Johnson’s motion for reconsideration is denied for the above reasons, it is
not necessary to consider whether the motion was also untimely under F.R.C.P. 59(e) or
improper under F.R.C.P. 60(b).
It is, accordingly,
ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 25) is denied.
/s/ James G. Carr
Sr. U.S. District Judge
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?