WEINSCHENK v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, No. 1:2020cv02510 - Document 32 (D.D.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on November 9, 2021. (lcckk1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WEINSCHENK v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Doc. 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARLES WEINSCHENK, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 20-2510 (CKK) v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (November 9, 2021) On June 24, 2021, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s pro se action “in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 26, at 5. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal order on June 30, 2021. See Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 29, at 1. On July 12, 2021, however, Plaintiff then filed an “Expedited Request for Dismissal.” Therein, Plaintiff requested a voluntary dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), based on his desire to “voluntarily cede th[is] matter.” Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 30, at 1. In that same motion, Plaintiff also requested that the Court “dismiss[] the action prior to ruling on the pending . . . Request for Reconsideration.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s [29] Motion for Reconsideration and [30] Expedited Request for Dismissal are presently pending before the Court. First, the Court will deny the [29] Motion for Reconsideration as moot. This ruling comports with Plaintiff’s decision to “voluntarily cede” his position in this case, id. at 1, and his corresponding request for the Court not to rule on his motion for reconsideration, but instead deny that motion as moot, see id. at 2 (The “Court’s indulgence is requested in denying [the] pending motion as moot at the plaintiff’s request.”). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Second, the Court will also deny Plaintiff’s “Expedited Request for Dismissal.” Again, this motion asks the Court for a voluntary dismissal order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). As a general matter, courts grant dismissals under Rule 41(a)(2) “unless the defendant would suffer prejudice other than the prospect of a second lawsuit or some tactical disadvantage.” Conafay v. Wyeth Labs., 793 F.2d 350, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Nonetheless, courts evaluating Rule 41(a)(2) motions also consider “the adequacy of the plaintiff’s explanation for voluntary dismissal” and “the stage of the litigation at the time the motion to dismiss is made.” Mitchell v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n for Wells Fargo Asset Sec. Corp. Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR4, 293 F. Supp. 3d 209, 213 (D.D.C. 2018). Here, Plaintiff requests a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal order after the Court has already dismissed this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 26, at 5. And Plaintiff offers no plausible explanation why a subsequent Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal order would be necessary or appropriate at this juncture. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s request for a voluntary dismissal order is warranted. Dated: November 9, 2021 /s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge 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.
