Smith v. Shasta County

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 James Smith, No. 2:20-cv-01837-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Shasta County, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 In January 2021, parties stipulated to and jointly requested dismissal of this action.

18 | Stipulation, ECF No. 11. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, closing the case.

19 | Minute Order, ECF No. 12. Now plaintiff, acting without his counsel, moves to reopen the case.

20 | Mot. to Reopen Case, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff alleges he continues to suffer the damages, which | were the basis for his original complaint. He also appears to be raising allegations of new | damages due to misrepresentations by his counsel. “A dismissal without prejudice terminates the | action and concludes the rights of the parties in that particular action.” United States v. | California, 507 U.S. 746, 756 (1993) (citation and internal quotations omitted). To reopen a case | that has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), it appears the | proper course of action is to file a new complaint, not move to reopen the prior action. Therefore, | the court denies plaintiff's Motion to Reopen.

28 This order resolves ECF No. 13.

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 DATED: April 12, 2021.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE