Davis et al v. Alabama Department of Human Resources et al, No. 2:2020cv00266 - Document 82 (N.D. Ind. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER The Court STRIKES the 79 Verified Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice, 80 the Verified Emergency Motion for Relief and the 81 Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction Relief. Anyrelief based on these motions must be filed in a new cause of action under a new cause number. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 2/17/21. (kjp)

Download PDF
Davis et al v. Alabama Department of Human Resources et al Doc. 82 USDC IN/ND case 2:20-cv-00266-TLS-APR document 82 filed 02/17/21 page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION JOHN H. DAVIS, SHELIA D. DAVIS, and ERIC S. DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. CAUSE NO.: 2:20-CV-266-TLS-APR LIMESTONE COUNTY ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on a Verified Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice [ECF No. 79], a Verified Emergency Motion for Relief [ECF No. 80], and a Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction Relief [ECF No. 81], filed by John H. Davis and Shelia D. Davis on February 15, 2021. On October 12, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Dismissal Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) [ECF No. 74], which dismissed the case without prejudice, see Oct. 16, 2020 Order, ECF No. 77. The voluntary dismissal is self-executing and closed the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) (“Without a Court Order”); Jenkins v. Village of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622, 624 (7th Cir. 2007). “A suit that is voluntarily dismissed under Rule 41(a) generally is treated as if it had never been filed.” Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Smith v. Potter, 513 F.3d 781, 783 (7th Cir. 2008); Beck v. Caterpillar, Inc., 50 F.3d 405, 407 (7th Cir. 1995)). “Once an action has been dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice, the plaintiff may bring the suit again by filing a new complaint.” Id. at 588 (citing Richmond v. Chater, 94 F.3d 263, 267 (7th Cir. 1996); Adams v. Lever Bros. Co., 874 F.2d 393, 395–96 (7th Dockets.Justia.com USDC IN/ND case 2:20-cv-00266-TLS-APR document 82 filed 02/17/21 page 2 of 2 Cir. 1989); McCall–Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178, 1184 (7th Cir. 1985); Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”)). In this case, the voluntary dismissal on October 12, 2020, terminated this action, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the three pending motions. See Nelson, 657 F.3d at 588–89 (discussing the limited matters over which a court has jurisdiction following voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)). Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the Verified Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice [ECF No. 79], the Verified Emergency Motion for Relief [ECF No. 80], and the Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction Relief [ECF No. 81]. Any relief based on these motions must be filed in a new cause of action under a new cause number. SO ORDERED on February 17, 2021. s/ Theresa L. Springmann JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.