Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00426/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00426-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLETCHER SAM, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00426-AWI-TAG 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO GRANT PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 10)

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant petition, raising constitutional questions

regarding the manner of calculating Petitioner’s credits. (Doc. 1). On March 24, 2006, pursuant to

an order of the Court, Respondent filed a response. (Doc. 9). On April 10, 2006, Petitioner filed a

brief document requesting “that the court construe this communication as a Motion to Dismiss

Without Prejudice, the 28 U.S.C. sec. 2241 Motion currently Pending before this court in case

Number 1:05-CV-00246.” (Doc. 10). 

DISCUSSION

Subject to other provisions of law, a petitioner may voluntarily dismiss an action without

leave of court before service by the adverse party of an answer or motion for summary judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Otherwise, an action shall not be dismissed except “upon order of the court

05-002and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). A

Case 1:05-cv-00426-AWI-TAG Document 11 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) should be

granted unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the

dismissal. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Stevedoring Svcs. Of

America v. Armilla Int’l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that the purpose of Rule

41(a)(2) is “to permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action without prejudice so long as the defendant will

not be prejudiced...or unfairly affected by dismissal.”) “[L]egal prejudice does not result merely

because the defendant will be inconvenienced by having to defend in another forum or where a

plaintiff would gain a tactical advantage by that dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976. Rather, legal

prejudice is “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.” Smith, 263

F.3d at 976. 

Here, Respondent had filed a response before Petitioner filed his request for dismissal. No

stipulation for dismissal has been filed in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Accordingly, the

motion to dismiss lies in the discretion of the Court, and the Court should grant Petitioner’s motion

unless Respondent will suffer legal prejudice thereby. Smith, 263 F.3d at 975. Certainly,

Respondent has already expended some effort in this case by filing a voluminous response to the

instant petition. Nevertheless, in the ensuing ten months since Petitioner filed his motion to dismiss,

Respondent has never filed an opposition to Petitioner’s motion nor has Respondent filed any other

document in these proceedings suggesting that Respondent would be legally prejudiced should the

Court grant the motion to dismiss. Although Petitioner offers no reasons for requesting the

dismissal, nothing in the record now before the Court suggests that the dismissal is being sought for

improper motives or to gain a tactical advantage. It appears to the Court that Petitioner has simply

decided to abandon his petition.

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Respondent would not be legally

prejudiced by the dismissal of this action, and therefore recommends the same.

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00426-AWI-TAG Document 11 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss

the petition (Doc. 10), be GRANTED.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned

to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fifteen

(15) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may file

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.” Replies to the

Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail)

after service of the Objections. The District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Judge. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00426-AWI-TAG Document 11 Filed 02/22/07 Page 3 of 3