Definition
The formal termination of a legal proceeding by a court's order that the complaint — the initiating document setting forth the plaintiff's or prosecutor's claims — shall not proceed further. Dismissal of a complaint ends the case as pleaded, though it may or may not bar the party from bringing the same claims again, depending on whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
The term operates across two distinct legal contexts:
1. Civil procedure: A court's order ending a civil action on the basis of a defect in the complaint itself (failure to state a claim, lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to join a necessary party, or similar grounds), or upon the plaintiff's own motion. The complaint is the operative pleading, and dismissal at this stage typically precedes any merits adjudication.
2. Criminal procedure: A court's order terminating a criminal prosecution, often at the pretrial stage, either on the government's motion, for failure to prosecute, for constitutional defects, or because the complaint fails to allege a cognizable offense. In the criminal context, "complaint" may refer specifically to the charging document used to initiate proceedings before indictment or information is filed, giving "dismissal of complaint" a more technically precise meaning than in civil practice.
---
Common Confusion
DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT vs. DISMISSAL OF ACTION: These terms are closely related but not identical. A dismissal of action is the broader category — it terminates the entire proceeding regardless of the procedural vehicle. A dismissal of complaint refers specifically to the court's rejection of the initiating pleading. In practice, dismissing the complaint typically has the same practical effect as dismissing the action, but the distinction matters in multi-count litigation or where amended pleadings are pending. Rapalje & Lawrence cross-references the two terms without treating them as synonymous, suggesting practitioners of the historical period recognized a meaningful distinction.
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE vs. WITHOUT PREJUDICE: A dismissal of complaint does not automatically foreclose refiling. Whether the plaintiff or prosecutor may return to court on the same claims depends entirely on whether the court has designated the dismissal as with prejudice (final, claim-extinguishing) or without prejudice (terminates current proceeding but permits refiling). This distinction is often more practically important than the dismissal itself, yet it is frequently overlooked in quick review of historical docket entries.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Voluntary dismissal: The plaintiff (or, in criminal proceedings, the prosecutor) moves to dismiss the complaint on their own initiative. In federal civil practice, a plaintiff may dismiss as of right before the opposing party answers or moves for summary judgment; thereafter, court approval is required.
Involuntary dismissal: The court dismisses on the defendant's motion or on its own initiative (sua sponte), typically for failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or failure to prosecute.
Dismissal for failure to state a claim: The most common civil ground. The complaint's allegations, taken as true, do not support a legal claim entitling the plaintiff to relief. The standard and label for this motion has shifted over time (see WHY IT MATTERS IN RESEARCH).
Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction: The court finds it has no authority to hear the matter — either subject matter jurisdiction is absent or personal jurisdiction over the defendant is defective.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Terminology shifted substantially over the twentieth century in federal civil practice. Before the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938), motions attacking the sufficiency of a pleading were commonly called demurrers. The FRCP replaced the demurrer with the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Researchers using pre-1938 federal materials or working in state courts that retained common law pleading terminology longer will encounter "demurrer" where modern sources say "dismissal of complaint." These are functionally equivalent in most contexts but indexed differently in historical digests and reporters.
The pleading standard governing when a federal court must grant a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal changed dramatically in the early twenty-first century, moving from the liberal Conley notice-pleading standard to the more demanding plausibility standard. Research involving dismissal motions from before roughly 2007 must account for this doctrinal shift when comparing outcomes across periods.
In criminal practice, the distinction between a complaint and an indictment or information is operationally significant. A dismissal of the complaint at the preliminary hearing stage does not necessarily bar re-prosecution — double jeopardy typically attaches later in the proceeding. Researchers tracking criminal case outcomes in historical court records should not treat a dismissed complaint as an acquittal or a final resolution of the underlying charges.
Jurisdictional variation in state courts is substantial. Some states retain demurrer practice; others use motions to dismiss on different procedural timelines; still others treat the complaint as an organic document that the plaintiff may amend as of right multiple times before dismissal becomes available. Case outcome data drawn from state courts without attention to local procedure may be difficult to compare.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry is essentially a stub pointing researchers to DISMISSAL OF ACTION and a chancery practice source (Dan. Ch. Pr. 43), confirming that as of the late nineteenth century, the more developed doctrinal treatment appeared under the action rather than the complaint specifically — reflecting a period when the complaint as a discrete procedural unit was less conceptually foregrounded than it is under modern notice-pleading and plausibility-pleading regimes.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence (1883) addresses dismissal of complaint only by cross-reference to DISMISSAL OF ACTION and to Daniel's Chancery Practice — a signal that the term had not yet fully crystallized as a standalone doctrinal category. The reference to chancery practice is significant: equity courts developed much of the procedural vocabulary around dismissal, and the distinction between dismissal with and without prejudice has roots in equity practice rather than common law pleading.
The entry for DISMISSED (56 N.H. 414, 417) appears in the dictionary to supply a judicial gloss on what courts understood "dismissed" to mean operationally — a practical anchor rather than a theoretical definition. Historical dictionaries of this period frequently filled doctrinal gaps with representative case citations rather than synthesized definitions.
What the historical dictionaries do not supply: any treatment of the with/without prejudice distinction as a formal binary, any discussion of the plaintiff's right to voluntary dismissal, or any engagement with the administrative and docket-management functions that dismissal has come to serve in modern courts managing high caseloads. These are entirely twentieth-century developments and will not be found in Rapalje & Lawrence or contemporaneous sources.
---
Jurisdictional Note
State courts vary significantly in whether they permit the court to dismiss a complaint sua sponte without a motion from the defendant, and in the number of amendments a plaintiff may file as of right before dismissal becomes available. Federal courts under the FRCP present a largely uniform framework, but even there, local rules and individual judicial practices shape how quickly and on what grounds complaints are dismissed. Researchers should not assume federal dismissal practice maps cleanly onto any given state system.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Pretrial Motions — Motion to Dismiss (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia): Covers the procedural mechanics and constitutional constraints on dismissal in criminal proceedings, including double jeopardy implications and the government's power to nolle prosequi.
Federal Question Jurisdiction — 28 USC 1331 and the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia): Addresses how the complaint's own allegations determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, directly bearing on jurisdictional grounds for dismissal.
---