Devonte Stephenson v. State of California, 5:21-cv-00526

Plaintiffs are the surviving sons of Leroy Stephenson, bringing suit after their father died during an interaction with law enforcement officers in Riverside, California.
The lawsuit originally alleged federal and state claims against several defendants, including Jeffrey McKee, under theories such as wrongful death, negligence, excessive force (Fourth Amendment), and due process violations (Fourteenth Amendment).
Some defendants and claims were previously dismissed via stipulation or earlier motion practice, leaving McKee as a defendant solely on the federal excessive force claim (Third Cause of Action).
After the Court denied qualified immunity on the excessive force claim, McKee appealed the denial to the Ninth Circuit, and sought a stay of the district court case.
Plaintiffs subsequently moved to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice all federal claims against McKee, making the appeal moot; McKee opposed the dismissal.
The Court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to rule on the dismissal motion despite the pending appeal and, if so, whether voluntary dismissal was warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to dismiss during pending interlocutory appeal	Divesture only bars proceeding to trial; dismissal is allowed	Court lacks jurisdiction due to pending appeal	Jurisdiction exists—the appeal is now frivolous/moot
Whether dismissal would cause prejudice to McKee	Dismissal with prejudice prevents legal prejudice	Did not identify any specific prejudice	No plain legal prejudice; dismissal with prejudice ok
Mootness of appeal after voluntary dismissal motion	Appeal is frivolous since Plaintiffs seek to dismiss claim	Claimed potential appellate guidance on other claims	Appeal is moot; dismissal precludes relief on appeal
Discretion under Rule 41(a)(2)	Court should exercise discretion to grant with-prejudice dismissal	Opposed, but offered no persuasive reason	Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal granted—Third Claim dismissed

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (explaining the divesture of district court jurisdiction upon filing notice of appeal)
United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842 (Ninth Circuit rule on divesture of jurisdiction and exceptions)
Rodriguez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (mandatory claim-processing rules and flexible approach to divesture)
Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104 (divestiture applies unless appeal is frivolous)
Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848 F.2d 1007 (defining when an appeal is frivolous)
In re Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898 (an appeal becomes moot when the underlying question is no longer live)
George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829 (scope of interlocutory appeal on qualified immunity)
Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 143 (court's discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2))