Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02041/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02041-0/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

16cv2041-BAS-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNELL D. FULCHER,

Petitioner,

v.

S. HATTON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2041-BAS-BGS

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING

1. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

2. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 11, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On

September 14, 2016, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Second and Successive 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 7.) This motion argued that Petitioner 

previously challenged the same conviction at issue in habeas corpus proceedings in this 

Court in Fulcher, Donnell v. R.H. Trimble, United States District Court, Southern 

District, case no. 11CV0959-CAB-WMc. (Id. at 2.) As a result, Respondent argued that 

Petitioner’s Petition should be dismissed. (Id.)

On November 4, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. (ECF 

Case 3:16-cv-02041-BAS-BGS Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv2041-BAS-BGS

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

No. 10.) In that motion, Petitioner concedes that he lacks leave from the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals to file this second and successive petition. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner 

requests that the Court dismiss his petition of habeas corpus in its entirety, without 

prejudice. (Id. at 1.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 41 provides that a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by 

filing[ ] a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a 

motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Rule 41(a)(1) creates for 

plaintiffs an “absolute right” to voluntarily dismiss claims against a defendant who has 

not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment. Young v. Bishop 

Estate, 497 Fed. Appx. 735, 736 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Unless the notice of dismissal provides otherwise, voluntary dismissal under 

FRCP 41(a)(1) is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). However, “if the 

plaintiff previously dismissed any federal—or state—court action based on or including 

the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).

If the Defendant has filed a responsive pleading or a motion for summary 

judgment, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on 

terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The court should grant a 

motion for voluntary dismissal unless doing so would cause the defendant to suffer from 

“some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & 

Rubber Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). Unless the court specifies 

otherwise, a voluntary dismissal with leave of the court is without prejudice.

III. DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant has filed neither an answer to the Petition nor a motion for 

summary judgment. Thus, under Rule 41(a)(1), Petitioner is entitled to dismiss his 

complaint without prejudice. Respondent does not oppose Petitioner’s Motion for 

Voluntary Dismissal. 

Case 3:16-cv-02041-BAS-BGS Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv2041-BAS-BGS

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

Unlike dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), which gives the court discretion to grant a 

motion for voluntary dismissal with or without prejudice, Rule 41(a)(1) provides that 

dismissal is without prejudice unless the plaintiff “previously dismissed any . . . court 

action based on or including the same claim.” No evidence on the record indicates that 

Petitioner previously dismissed the claims he now wishes to withdraw. Therefore, the 

Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal be 

GRANTED, without prejudice to refile. Because there is no longer a live complaint 

which the court may dismiss, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s Motion to 

Dismiss be denied as MOOT.

IV. CONCLUSION

This report and recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted 

to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provision of 28 

U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is GRANTED; 

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as MOOT; 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than February 14, 2017, any party to this action 

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with 

the Court and served on all parties no later than February 28, 2017. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 

449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 31, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02041-BAS-BGS Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3