Is My Eviction Case Dismissed With Or Without Prejudice?

A dismissal 'with prejudice' ends your eviction case permanently, preventing the landlord from refiling the same claim.

In practice, a court that tosses an eviction 'with prejudice' signals that the landlord's complaint was fundamentally flawed - perhaps lacking legal standing or violating tenant‑rights statutes. Because the judgment bars any future lawsuit on the identical facts, the tenant can stay put without fearing a repeat filing.

For example, if a landlord tries to evict for alleged noise violations but the notice failed to meet statutory timing, a 'with prejudice' dismissal means the landlord cannot later bring a new eviction for that same noise issue. Similarly, when a landlord files without proper service and the court rules 'with prejudice,' the tenant's lease remains intact, and the landlord must pursue a fresh, legally sound claim if new evidence arises. (See Nolo's guide to eviction dismissals with prejudice for deeper insight.)

A dismissal 'without prejudice' appears explicitly on the order, but its absence isn't a reliable shortcut to 'with prejudice.' (Assume nothing until you read the whole thing.)

How to spot the phrase on your eviction papers

1. Scan the heading - Most courts label the order's type right under the case caption. Look for the exact words 'without prejudice.' If they're missing, move on; don't jump to conclusions.
2. Read the operative clause - The paragraph that states the court's action often repeats the dismissal language. Phrases such as 'case dismissed without prejudice' or 'dismissal is without prejudice' confirm the status.
3. Check the reason for dismissal - Procedural defects (e.g., improper service) usually produce a 'without prejudice' outcome even if the phrase is omitted. A dismissal on the merits typically carries 'with prejudice.'
4. Consult the docket entry - The electronic filing system tags the dismissal type. Look for a code or note indicating 'WP' (without prejudice) or 'WPREJ.'
5. Cross‑reference local rules - Some jurisdictions treat voluntary dismissals as 'without prejudice' by default. Verify the rule in your state's civil procedure handbook or a trusted site like North Carolina Court Rules summary.
6. Ask the clerk if unsure - A quick call can clarify whether the order permits refiling, saving you a night of speculation.

A without prejudice dismissal tosses the eviction case but intentionally leaves the filing door ajar, unlike a with prejudice outcome that seals it permanently (as we covered above).

Since the court never decided the merits, it retains jurisdiction; the landlord simply initiates a fresh complaint, often re‑using the original notice and claim. For example, a landlord who cited a month's unpaid rent can refile the next week, forcing the tenant to mount a new defense from scratch. This freedom to restart explains why many dismissals later resurrect, a pattern explored in the '70 % of without prejudice cases restart' section.

A dismissal with prejudice closes the eviction case in the court docket, so screening services label it as 'dismissed - not a judgment.' The entry remains publicly accessible but no longer signals an adverse outcome, and landlords cannot refile the same claim.

• The docket entry stays visible but is marked dismissed with prejudice, effectively deactivating the case for future rentals.
• Most tenant‑screening databases refresh within 30‑45 days, showing the dismissal status instead of an active eviction.
• No judgment means the eviction does not appear on credit reports, eliminating the typical credit‑score hit.
• Include a copy of the dismissal order with new rental applications to pre‑empt landlord confusion.
• If a landlord still cites the case, request verification under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; the CFPB explains how eviction reports work.

Approximately 70 % of eviction cases dismissed without prejudice get filed again within six months, according to limited‑sample estimates from recent court‑record analyses that track re‑filings in several states.

That figure reflects landlords' ability to restart the process because a dismissal without prejudice leaves the underlying claim alive. Most courts treat the dismissal as a procedural reset, not a substantive judgment, so the landlord can serve a new notice and sue again. Statutes of limitations generally keep ticking; they do not pause simply because the case was dismissed, meaning the tenant's original deadline may already be close to expiring when the landlord re‑initiates.

Key factors driving the high re‑file rate:

• Procedural errors - missed paperwork or filing deadlines trigger a dismissal without prejudice, giving the landlord a clean slate.
• New evidence - landlords often gather additional documentation after the first hearing, strengthening the second complaint.
• Financial pressure - a brief pause can be used to negotiate rent arrears, then a fresh lawsuit follows if talks fail.
• Statute‑of‑limitations timing - the clock continues to run, so a tenant who waits too long may lose the defense of 'timeliness.'
• Tenant's response lag - delayed legal counsel or missed court notices make re‑filing easier for the landlord.

Understanding these dynamics explains why most without‑prejudice dismissals are not the end of the battle, setting the stage for the tenant traps discussed next.

• Assuming a 'without‑prejudice' dismissal blocks any future suit. Courts often allow landlords to re‑file, and deadline hinges on state eviction statutes and the original notice period, which can be as short as a few weeks (see the state‑specific eviction notice requirements).
• Believing a settlement evaporates once the case closes. A dismissal without prejudice ends the current proceeding, but any settlement or payment agreement remains enforceable unless both parties expressly release it.
• Overlooking the statutory refiling window. Landlords must act within the period prescribed by local law; missing that window can give tenants a timely defense, so tracking the exact deadline is critical.
• Failing to preserve the dismissal order. Without a copy of the court's 'without prejudice' language, tenants may struggle to prove the case's status when a landlord attempts to re‑file.
• Ignoring the lingering impact on rental history. A dismissal without prejudice does not erase the eviction filing, and credit‑oriented databases may still flag the case until it is finally resolved or dismissed with prejudice.

A with‑prejudice dismissal shuts the door on any future filing, locking your home in place.

1. Scrutinize the judge's order; the phrase 'with prejudice' must appear verbatim, confirming the case cannot be revived.
2. Submit a request for an official entry of judgment to the clerk, securing a stamped docket sheet that lists the dismissal as final.
3. Deliver a certified copy of that docket sheet to the landlord, creating a paper trail that proves the eviction is dead‑ended.
4. Forward the certified copy to tenant‑screening agencies and, if applicable, to credit‑reporting bureaus so the dismissal appears on your rental record.
5. Archive every document; if a landlord files again, cite the with‑prejudice order in a motion to enforce the bar, referencing the earlier steps as evidence (see Nolo's guide to eviction dismissals with prejudice).

These actions cement the protection, keeping the eviction from resurfacing.

a six‑month re‑filing window does not exist anywhere by default. When a court dismisses an eviction case 'without prejudice,' the landlord may bring the same claim again, but the deadline is set by the jurisdiction's statute of limitations for unlawful detainer actions, not by a blanket 30‑, 90‑, or 180‑day rule. In California, for example, an unlawful detainer must be filed within two years of the breach of lease, and there is no specific six‑month restriction in CCP § 583.210. Other states tie the deadline to their own limitation periods, which can range from months to several years.

Because the clock starts on the dismissal date, track that date and calculate the remaining limitation period before filing a new complaint. Acting well before the deadline reduces the risk that a court will view the delay as a waiver or that a landlord will use the pause to strengthen their case. Some jurisdictions also impose procedural timelines - such as a required 30‑day notice before re‑filing - but these are local rules, not a universal six‑month standard. Knowing the exact deadline in your state prevents surprise re‑filings and keeps the eviction battle on your terms.

The landlord's case got tossed out on a without‑prejudice basis, yet the same landlord kept banging on the door, threatening utility shut‑offs, and filing bogus noise complaints.

Because the dismissal didn't block a refiling, the tenant remained vulnerable to repeated intimidation, and the court's order offered no protection against non‑court‑room harassment. Filing a separate restraining order or a civil claim for harassment can stop the nuisance while the eviction remains dormant. Nolo explains how to pursue a harassment claim.

Next, the article shows how to spot a sneaky refile in your state and what defenses cut through it before the six‑month window closes.

When a court ends an eviction case with prejudice, the filing is a final judgment that permanently bars any further action on the same claim. Any new complaint the landlord attempts to serve is automatically defective; a simple motion to dismiss on the 'with prejudice' ground will strike it out. State statutes, such as NY eviction statutes on final judgments, explicitly forbid refiling, so the court will dismiss the second case without a hearing.

When the dismissal was without prejudice, the judgment does not create res judicata, so the landlord may reopen the case. The tenant cannot rely on the prior dismissal to block the new suit; instead, attack the fresh filing on its own merits. Raise any procedural misstep - improper service, missing notice period, or lack of standing - in a motion to dismiss. If the landlord repeatedly files after the initial dismissal, document the pattern; a harassment claim may become viable under local tenant‑protection laws.