Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06551/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06551-5/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

CHRISTOPHER SIMAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:04-cv-06551-AWI-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

GRANT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

VOLUNTARILY DISMISS AMENDED

PETITION

(Doc. 22)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS

BE FILED WITHIN TEN COURT DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

DISCUSSION

On November 5, 2004, Petitioner filed his original petition in the Sacramento Division of

this Court. (Doc. 1). On November 15, 2004, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division. 

(Doc. 2). On March 24, 2005, Petitioner filed an amended petition. (Doc. 7). On October 3,

2005, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings while he exhausted issues in

state court. (Doc. 10). On January 18, 2008, the Court lifted the stay and ordered Respondent to

file a response. (Docs. 19 & 21). On February 11, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant motion to

voluntarily dismiss the amended petition. (Doc. 22). In that motion, Petitioner indicates that one

of his state court petitions was granted and his sentence reduced from 16 years to 12 years;

accordingly, he wishes to have the amended petition dismissed without prejudice. (Id.). 

Subject to other provisions of law, a petitioner may voluntarily dismiss an action without

leave of court before service by the adverse party of an answer or motion for summary judgment. 

Case 1:04-cv-06551-AWI -TAG Document 24 Filed 03/12/08 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

Petitioner is forewarned that there is a one-year limitations period in which a federal petition for writ of 1

habeas corpus must be filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). In most cases, the one-year period begins to run at the

conclusion of direct review. See id. The limitations period is tolled while a properly filed request for collateral

review is pending in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9 Cir. 1999), cert. th

denied, 120 S.Ct. 1846 (2000). However, the limitations period is not tolled for the time such an application is

pending in federal court. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S.167, 181-182, 121 S.Ct.2120 (2001).

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Otherwise, an action shall not be dismissed except upon order of the court

and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. Id. Here, no answer or motion

for summary judgment has been served or filed. Therefore, the motion to voluntarily dismiss the

amended petition is proper and should be granted.1

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s motion for voluntary

dismissal (Doc. 22), be GRANTED and the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 7),

be DISMISSED without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, 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 ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 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

Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within five (5) court days

(plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The District Judge 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 Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-06551-AWI -TAG Document 24 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 2