PYLES v. GAETZ, 13-cv-299-MJR-SCW. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20141021m59
Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER MICHAEL J. REAGAN, Chief District Judge. This 1983 civil rights lawsuit comprises various claims based on Menard Correctional Center's policy of allegedly unconstitutional lockdowns. (Doc. 1). Pro se Plaintiff Christopher Pyles has moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendants Hillerman (who filed an Answer on May 1, 2014) and Kowalkowski (who has yet to answer). Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court order
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER MICHAEL J. REAGAN, Chief District Judge. This 1983 civil rights lawsuit comprises various claims based on Menard Correctional Center's policy of allegedly unconstitutional lockdowns. (Doc. 1). Pro se Plaintiff Christopher Pyles has moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendants Hillerman (who filed an Answer on May 1, 2014) and Kowalkowski (who has yet to answer). Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court order e..
More
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, Chief District Judge.
This § 1983 civil rights lawsuit comprises various claims based on Menard Correctional Center's policy of allegedly unconstitutional lockdowns. (Doc. 1). Pro se Plaintiff Christopher Pyles has moved to voluntarily dismiss Defendants Hillerman (who filed an Answer on May 1, 2014) and Kowalkowski (who has yet to answer).
Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court order either before a defendant answers or by joint stipulation of the parties. Rule 41(a)(2) allows voluntary dismissal where a defendant has answered, but only on terms that the court considers proper.
Here, since Kowalkowski has not answered, Plaintiff's motion (really a notice) terminates the case against Kowalkowski "all by itself" without judicial approval. Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 624-25 (7th Cir. 2007). In a filing at Doc. 132, Hillerman indicates no objection to Plaintiff's motion, so the Court (finding dismissal without prejudice is proper) GRANTS (Doc. 125) Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss.
Defendants Kowalkowski and Hillerman are dismissed without prejudice, and Kowalkowski's motion to continue the deadline for responsive pleading (Doc. 145) is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
