Opinion
Case No. C2-08-CV-149.
August 31, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Brenda L. Robinette's ("Robinette") Motion to Extend Dismiss/Without Prejudice (doc. no. 22). For the reasons stated below, Robinette's Motion is DENIED.
On February 15, 2008, Robinette filed a complaint against Olentangy School District and Oak Creek Elementary School ("Defendants"). In the complaint, Robinette appeared to allege that Defendants discriminated against herself and her son in violation of either 42 U.S.C. § 2000d or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Robinette later filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss. While, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was still pending, Robinette filed a pro se Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice (doc. no. 19). On October 14, 2008, the Court granted that motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), dismissing the suit without prejudice and closing the case. On April 22, 2009, Robinette filed a Motion to Extend Dismiss/Without Prejudice (doc. no. 22), which is now before the Court.
In her Motion, Robinette asks the Court to give her an "extension on the dismissal without prejudice." More specifically, she asks the court to giver her at least six additional months to refile her case before this Court. This Court cannot grant Robinette's Motion because the Court no longer has jurisdiction over this matter.
"[A] dismissal without prejudice leaves the situation the same as if the suit had never been brought." Hall v. Kroger Baking Co., 520 F.2d 1204, 1205 (6th Cir. 1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution restricts federal courts to the decision of "Cases" or "Controversies." Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997). This matter has been voluntarily dismissed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, which terminated the case. Therefore, there is no longer a live case or controversy over which this Court may exert jurisdiction.
It is true that district courts retain jurisdiction over collateral matters, such as motions for Rule 11 sanctions and attorney's fees awards, after a voluntary dismissal. Cooter Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990). Courts retain jurisdiction over such matters because they are not determinations of the legal merits of the complaint. Id. Robinette's request for more time to refile her complaint is not a motion requesting a determination on a collateral issue, which would fall under that exception to the general rule. Rather, Robinette is requesting the Court to make a determination over a matter that is no longer before the Court.
Should Robinette choose to refile her complaint in the future, the timeliness of her complaint will be calculated by the Court, at the time she files, based on the statutes of limitations applicable to her claims. This Court does not have the power to ignore or extend the relevant statutes of limitations by judicial fiat. To the extent that Robinette's Motion seeks advice from the Court regarding when she can refile her complaint and still fall within the applicable statute of limitations, this Court declines to act as her legal counsel. Trial judges are "under no duty to provide personal instruction on courtroom procedure or to perform any legal `chores' for the [pro se litigant] that counsel would normally carry out." Martinez v. Ct. Of Appeals of CA, Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152, 162 (2000). That rule extends to calculating the statute of limitations for a pro se litigant such as Robinette. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).
For the foregoing reasons, Robinette's Motion to Extend Dismiss/Without Prejudice is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.