Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01326/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01326-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER LEATRICE HENLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

D.K. JOHNSON, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01326 MJS (HC)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS 

PETITION 

[Doc. 7]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 9, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should 

not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. (ECF No. 4.) The Court noted that 

based on the information in the petition, that Petitioner might have mistakenly filed the 

petition here, rather than with the relevant state court. On September 25, 2015, 

Petitioner filed a response, noting that the filing of the petition with this Court was 

unintentional and requesting voluntary dismissal of the petition. (Mot., ECF No. 7.) P

Pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1), Petitioner may voluntarily dismiss the 

action without prejudice without a court order if dismissal is requested before the 

opposing party answers. (See Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, “The 

Case 1:15-cv-01326-MJS Document 8 Filed 10/16/15 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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any 

statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.”) 

Respondent has yet to file an answer in this matter.

Accordingly, good cause having been presented to the Court, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. (Petitioner also requests 

tolling of the deadline for filing her federal petition. While the Court is not capable of 

providing tolling at this time, Petitioner should be eligible for statutory tolling for the 

period of time relevant state petitions are pending in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(d).)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01326-MJS Document 8 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 2