Philip v. Executive Clemency Unit et al

Filing 9

ORDER Granting Motion to Dismiss 1983 Complaint (ECF No. 8); Denying Motion for Service of Process (ECF No. 6); and Dismissing Case Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. on August 30, 2024. (Mays, Samuel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION

ASHTON JAMARR PHILIP,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY UNIT, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:24-cv-01014-SHM-tmp

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS § 1983 COMPLAINT (ECF No. 8.);
DENYING MOTION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS (ECF No. 6);
AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff Ashton Jamarr Philip filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) When Philip filed
his complaint, he was confined at the Northwest Correctional Complex (the “NWCX”) in
Tiptonville, Tennessee.1 (ECF No. 1 at PageID 2.) The Court granted Philip’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 4.) On May 29, 2024, Philip filed a motion for
service of process. (ECF No. 6.) On August 14, 2024, Philip filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss
his complaint. (ECF No. 8.)

A search of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) Felony Offender
Information website reveals that Philip remains incarcerated at the NWCX.
See https://foil.app.tn.gov/foil/search.jsp (TDOC ID 455787) (last accessed Aug. 30, 2024).
1

Philips says that he is moving to dismiss the case “in the spirit of healing and
reconciliation” and because “[t]here is no longer any live action or controversy.” (Id. at PageID
104.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss his case before the
opposing party serves an answer. The defendants in this case have not been served.
The Court GRANTS Philip’s motion to dismiss his complaint. The case is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(a). Philip’s motion for service of process is
DENIED as moot because the case will not proceed.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of August, 2024.

/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2