Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00569/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00569-0/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 

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Travis ONeal Hylton 

Petitioner, 

v. 

R Brock, et. al. 

Respondents.

No. -2012-00569-TUC-RCC (CRP)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw. (Doc. 6). Petitioner 

requests the Court “withdraw this cause due to state exhaustion requirements needed.” 

(Doc. 6). In essence, Petitioner is requesting his case be voluntarily dismissed. 

Respondents have not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the Habeas Petition. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a party may dismiss an action without an 

order of the court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of an answer 

or a motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a).1

 The right to voluntarily dismiss 

an action under these circumstances is absolute. Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. 

Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1999). 

 On September 12, 2012, the Magistrate Judge informed Petitioner that if he 

withdrew his Habeas Petition, a subsequent habeas petition may be untimely because of 

 

1

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to section 2254 habeas corpus proceedings to the extent the rules are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or section 2254 rules. Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 

Courts, Rule 12. 

Case 4:12-cv-00569-RCC Document 11 Filed 10/15/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one year statute of limitations. (Doc. 

9). The Magistrate Judge gave Petitioner until October 1, 2012 to determine whether he 

would like the Court to render a decision on his Motion to Withdraw or whether he would 

like to withdraw the Motion. (Doc. 9, p. 3). Petitioner has not filed anything further with 

the Court. The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion 

to voluntarily dismiss his case. 

Recommendation 

The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court grant Petitioner’s Motion 

and voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). 

(Doc. 6). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party may serve and file written 

objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation. If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The 

parties are advised that any objections filed are to be identified with the following case 

number: cv-12-569-TUC-RCC. 

 Dated this 15th day of October, 2012. 

Case 4:12-cv-00569-RCC Document 11 Filed 10/15/12 Page 2 of 2