Heiden v. Webster City Police Dept et al, No. 3:2012cv03044 - Document 28 (N.D. Iowa 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Referral of this case to Magistrate Judge Leonard T Strand is withdrawn. 26 Pro Se Motion to Dismiss This Suit/Action is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each party shall bear its own costs. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 5/13/2014. (copy w/nef to non-ecf filer) (des)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Heiden v. Webster City Police Dept et al Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION WADE CHARLES HEIDEN, No. C 12-3044-MWB Plaintiff, vs. WEBSTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF’S OFFICE, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. ___________________________ Plaintiff Wade Charles Heiden initiated this action on July 9, 2012, by filing his pro se Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant To 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (docket no. 1), alleging constitutional violations arising from his arrest on or about October 29, 2010. This action is now before me, however, on Heiden’s April 24, 2014, Motion To Dismiss This Suit/Action (docket no. 26), in which Heiden asserts that he was under the influence of methamphetamine when the arrest happened and that, as a consequence, he “had the wrong incident, wrong date, wrong actors” for this lawsuit. He requests that this case be dismissed with all costs and fees billed to him. On April 24, 2014, by Order (docket no. 27) filed in the ordinary course of managing § 1983 actions, Heiden’s entire action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leonard Strand, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for review of the record and the pleadings, the conduct of any necessary evidentiary hearings, the hearing of any oral argument that may be necessary, and the submission to the undersigned of a report and recommended disposition of the case. Upon further review, however, I conclude that judicial efficiency and the interests of justice would be best served with withdrawing that referral and ruling on Heiden’s Motion To Dismiss directly. I also conclude that Dockets.Justia.com Heiden’s Motion To Dismiss this case voluntarily should be granted pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. THEREFORE, 1. The April 24, 2014, referral of this case to United States Magistrate Judge Leonard Strand, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), is withdrawn; 2. Plaintiff Heiden’s April 24, 2014, Motion To Dismiss This Suit/Action (docket no. 26) is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 3. Each party shall bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 13th day of May, 2014. ______________________________________ MARK W. BENNETT U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA 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.
