Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00262/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00262-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

LUKE SCARMAZZO,

Petitioner,

v.

RAFAEL ZUNIGA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00262-SAB-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

(ECF No. 14)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner challenges, on due process grounds, a 

prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of drug use and sanctioned with the 

loss of forty-one days of credit. Petitioner and Respondent have consented to the jurisdiction of 

the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 5, 9).

After Respondent filed an answer to the petition, Petitioner filed the instant motion 

wherein he “concedes the government’s position” and moves to dismiss the petition.1(ECF No. 

14). Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that after the opposing party 

files an answer or motion for summary judgment “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 

 

1

In the motion, Petitioner states that he “moves to withdraw[]” his § 2241 petition. (ECF No. 14). The Court 

construes the instant motion as a motion for voluntary dismissal. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381–82 

(2003) (courts may recharacterize a pro se motion to “create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro 

se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis”); Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.2d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 

2003) (courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings and motions liberally).

Case 1:16-cv-00262-SAB Document 15 Filed 06/29/16 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

request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). A 

count should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal unless the defendant can show that he will 

suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result. Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir.

2001). In light of Respondent’s failure to file any opposition to the motion, the Court HEREBY 

ORDERS that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED; and

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00262-SAB Document 15 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2