HOOLI

v.

CLERK LEVY COUNTY COURT

Basavaraj Hooli, proceeding pro se, sued the Clerk of the Levy County Court. The District Court in Delaware transferred the case here. As the magistrate judge notes, the claims are difficult to discern. But whatever they were, Hooli elected to dismiss them. He filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on June 1, which the magistrate judge recognized in a June 2 order. ECF Nos. 23, 24. After dismissing, Hooli had second thoughts. He filed a “request for reconsideration of second amendment,” in which he asked the court to “reconsider [his] Second Amendment Case.” ECF No. 25. The magistrate judge treated this as a motion for leave to amend and recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the proposed complaint did not allege any federal claim. ECF No. 28. I conclude, though, that Hooli’s earlier dismissal precluded consideration of any motion to amend. “[A] plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is effective immediately upon filing, and thus no further court order is necessary to effectuate

the dismissal.” Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 998 F. 3d 1258, 1265 (11th Cir. 2021) (marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1413 (2022). When a plaintiff files the self-executing notice, “the ‘action is no longer

pending,’ and the district court is immediately deprived of jurisdiction over the merits of the case.” Id. (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990)). Thus, this court is powerless to allow an amended complaint at this point.

This order thus recognizes Hooli’s earlier dismissal and confirms that the case was dismissed without prejudice at that time. If Hooli wishes to present new claims—or reassert old ones—he must do so in a new case.

The clerk will terminate the report and recommendation (ECF No. 29) and close the file. SO ORDERED on July 22, 2022. s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge