Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01534/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01534-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS FRITZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

LAURIEN SMITH, et al., 

Respondents. 

Case No. 15-cv-01534-DMR (PR) 

ORDER ACKNOWLEDGING 

PETITIONER’S VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION 

On April 3, 2015, Petitioner filed a document with the court in the instant case, which was 

opened as a habeas corpus action. Petitioner has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this 

matter. Dkt. 4 at 1. 

On the same day the action was filed the Clerk of the Court sent a notice to Petitioner 

informing him that his action could not go forward until he filed with the court a habeas corpus 

petition form, completed in full, within twenty-eight days or his action would be dismissed. He 

was also sent another notice directing him to either pay the filing fee or file a completed prisoner’s 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. The Clerk sent Petitioner a blank IFP application and told 

him that he must pay the fee or return the completed application within twenty-eight days or his 

action would be dismissed. 

Before the court is Petitioner’s “Motion to Dismiss,” in which he moves for the court to 

dismiss the above-referenced action because he has “found an ‘out of court settlement.’” Dkt. 5 at 

1. 

Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants a party bringing an action the 

absolute right to dismiss such action by filing a notice of dismissal “at any time before service by 

the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(i). Said dismissal may be with or without prejudice, but unless the notice of dismissal 

states otherwise, it is deemed to be “without prejudice.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Humphreys 

v. United States, 272 F.2d 411, 412 (9th Cir. 1959). No court order is required. The notice of 

dismissal is effective by itself to terminate the action: “[A]n action may be dismissed by [a party] 

Case 4:15-cv-01534-DMR Document 6 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

without order of the court . . . by filing a notice of dismissal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); see also 

Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman Am. Exp. Inc., 813 F.2d 1532, 1534-36 (9th Cir. 1987) (Rule 

41(a)(1)(i) does not require leave of court to dismiss the action). 

The court will construe Petitioner’s “Motion to Dismiss” as a notice of dismissal. 

Petitioner’s notice of dismissal was filed before service by the adverse party of an answer; 

therefore, the court finds that Petitioner has the absolute right to dismiss his action voluntarily. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(i). Based on Petitioner’s request for voluntary dismissal, the court 

acknowledges that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See id. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment, terminate all pending motions, and close the file. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

______________________________________ 

DONNA M. RYU 

United States Magistrate Judge 

May 1, 2015

Case 4:15-cv-01534-DMR Document 6 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 2