Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00823/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00823-1/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- 07cv823

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONTE LEON COROTHERS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv823-WQH (CAB)

ORDER

vs.

M. EVANS, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

On May 7, 2007, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On July 30, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the

Petition is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, or alternatively, that the Petition

should be dismissed because Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies. On August

30, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the Petition without prejudice, so that he may

exhaust his state court remedies. Cf. Jackson v. Roe, 425 F.3d 654, 657 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he

doctrine of exhaustion requires a petitioner to present his claims to a state court for review

before seeking relief in federal court.”).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) provides that a plaintiff may voluntarily

dismiss his case “at any time before the service by the adverse party of an answer or of a

motion for summary judgment.” Rule 41(a)(1) applies to habeas proceedings. See Williams

v. Clarke, 82 F.3d 270, 272-73 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Rule 11, Rules Governing Section

2254 Proceedings in the United States District Courts (providing that the Federal Rules of

Case 3:07-cv-00823-WQH-CAB Document 22 Filed 09/10/07 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- 07cv823

Civil Procedure apply to habeas corpus petitions “when appropriate” and “to the extent that

they are not inconsistent with” the rules governing habeas corpus cases). Respondent has not

yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment.

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), Petitioner’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 20) is

GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: September 10, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00823-WQH-CAB Document 22 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2