Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01101/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01101-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR GARZA,

Petitioner,

v.

M. S. EVANS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1101 AWI DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO

WITHDRAW PETITION

[Doc. 18]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 29, 2005. By

order of October 12, 2005, the Court directed Respondent to submit a response to the petition. 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition on December 7, 2005, arguing that the

petition is both barred by the one-year statute of limitations and is successive. After the grant of

two extensions of time, Petitioner filed the instant motion to withdraw the petition on April 4,

2006. Respondent has not filed an opposition to Petitioner’s motion. 

DISCUSSION

In his motion to withdraw, Petitioner states that he would like to exhaust “more of my

California State Court remedies, and new evidence, which I now understand that I must ask the

Ninth Circuit Court for Permission to Refile any other writs.” (Motion, at 1.) 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "an action may be

Case 1:05-cv-01101-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

dismissed by the [petitioner] without order of court [] by filing a notice of dismissal at any time

before service by the adverse party of an answer . . . ." “[A]n action shall not be dismissed at the

plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court

deems proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases, the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent

with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to petitions filed under these rules." 

Because it appears that Petitioner has acknowledged that he filed the instant petition in

this Court prematurely and/or inappropriately, the Court will recommend that Petitioner’s request

to voluntarily withdraw the instant petition be granted, in order to avoid needless further

litigation. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s motion to withdraw

his petition be GRANTED, and the instant petition be dismissed, without prejudice. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B)

and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern

District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail)

after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 2, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01101-AWI-DLB Document 19 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2