Zuehlke v. Town of La Pointe

Filing 8

ORDER accepting 7 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and dismissing case without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 2/24/2010. (eds),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------S T E P H A N IE ZUEHLKE, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 9 -c v -6 8 6 -s lc 1 v. T O W N OF LA POINTE, D efendan t. --------------------------------------------In an order entered in this case on December 10, 2009, the magistrate judge advised plaintiff on the procedures for serving her complaint on the defendant and provided the n ecessary forms needed to accomplish service. Plaintiff was to submit proof of service or explain to the court her inability to do so by February 13, 2010. Additionally, the

m a gistrate judge denied plaintiff's requests for appointment of counsel without prejudice. N ow , plaintiff has filed a letter in which she expresses her frustration with the denial of her requ est for appointment of counsel, says that she will not be pursuing her case against

This case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Crocker. Because the parties have not co n sen ted to his jurisdiction, I have assumed jurisdiction over the case for the purpose of issuing this order.

1

1

defendan t and asks the court to refund the $350 filing fee. The court is not unsympathetic to plaintiff's situation. This court would appoint a law yer to almost every pro se plaintiff if lawyers were available to take these cases. But they are not. Most lawyers do not have the time, the background or the desire to represent pro se plaintiffs in a pro bono capacity, and this court cannot make them. Pro se litigants often fail to realize that the court does not have the funds to pay the costs of representation in cases like this. Congress has appropriated finds for court-appointed counsel in criminal cases but it has not appropriated any funds for court-appointed counsel in civil cases like this one. L aw yers who accept appointments to represent pro se plaintiffs in civil cases can obtain co m p en satio n for their services only if they are successful and even then, the compensation m ay fall short of their time and effort. Secondly, plaintiff has notified the court that she "will not be pursuing my suit against the town on La Pointe." Because defendant has not yet filed an answer, plaintiff is free to dismiss her case voluntarily, without prejudice to her refiling the complaint at a later d ate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1078 (7th Cir. 1987)(Rule 41(a) "dismissal terminates the case all by itself"). Finally, plaintiff requests a refund of the $350 filing fee. Unfortunately, as the name suggests, that fee is for filing the case. The court is not authorized to refund it even if the case is dismissed at an early stage.

2

OR DER Plaintiff''s notice of voluntary dismissal of this action is ACCEPTED and this case is D IS M IS S ED without prejudice to plaintiff's filing a new lawsuit against defendant at a later tim e. The clerk of court is directed to close the case. E n tered this 24t h day of February, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3