Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02439/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02439-5/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 - 08cv2439 WQH (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BERNARD BARNO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv2439 WQH (AJB)

ORDER

vs.

ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Relief From Order (Doc. # 52).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). Petitioner conceded that four of his claims, claims eight

through eleven, have not been exhausted in state court (Doc. # 1 at 6-9). Petitioner filed a

motion to stay his federal habeas petition to allow him to exhaust these claims in state court

(Doc. # 2), which this Court denied on August 10, 2009 (Doc. # 30). On August 21, 2009,

Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his petition (Doc. # 34). In his motion, Petitioner stated

he wished to withdraw his petition because, relying “heavily”on this Court’s earlier order (Doc.

# 30), he believed that it is certain that he will be able to return to federal court after exhausting

his remedies in state court (Doc. # 34 at 2-3). Petitioner also states “if the State Supreme Court

denies relief while this motion is pending, it shall be vacated sua sponte or by motion from

Case 3:08-cv-02439-WQH-BGS Document 53 Filed 11/10/09 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 - 08cv2439 WQH (AJB)

petitioner, thereby allowing petitioner to amend and move on.” (Doc. # 34 at 2). 

On August 24, 2009, the Magistrate Judge gave Petitioner notice regarding the possible

dismissal of his petition for failure to exhaust state remedies as to claims eight through eleven

(Doc. # 33). In this notice, Petitioner was warned that the federal statute of limitations will not

be tolled for the period of time that his case was under consideration by the state court if his

state application is dismissed as improperly filed (Doc. # 33 at 3). 

On September 3, 2009, Petitioner filed a Notice of Dismissal which reiterated that he

wishes to have his claim dismissed in order to exhaust his state remedies (Doc. # 37). In that

Notice of Dismissal, Petitioner “incorporates by reference a motion filed on 8/20/09 to dismiss,”

referring to Docket # 34 (Doc. # 37). The Notice of Dismissal reiterates that Petitioner does

not want his Petition dismissed if the state court rules before this Court rules on the dismissal:

“If dismissal isn’t immediate, these latter filings will be deemed moot, so petitioner can amend

if the state rules pending the motion to dismiss and notice filed herein.” (Doc. # 37.)

The Court amended the order denying Petitioner’s motion to stay his case on October

8, 2009 (Doc. # 40). Petitioner’s motion to stay was again denied, but the Court declined to

adopt the full Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 40 at 5). The Court

then issued another notice regarding the possible dismissal of his petition for failure to exhaust

state remedies as to claims eight through eleven (Doc. # 41). 

On October 28, 2009, the Court received Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Order (Doc.

# 52). The motion was filed nunc pro tunc to October 23, 2009 (Doc. # 52). Petitioner’s

motion moves for “relief from [the] order and notice” which were entered on October 9, 2009

(Docs. # 40, 41). Petitioner “asserts this court lacked jurisdiction in entering any orders

amending prior orders on the denial of the motion to stay” because his Notice of Dismissal was

automatic pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

ORDER

A proper Rule 41(a)(1) notice “‘automatically terminates the action upon the filing of

the dismissal with the clerk.’” Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139, 1142 (9th Cir. 2003)

(quoting Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, Inc., 813 F.2d 1532, 1534-35 (9th

Case 3:08-cv-02439-WQH-BGS Document 53 Filed 11/10/09 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 - 08cv2439 WQH (AJB)

Cir. 1987)). However, “a plaintiff may not attach conditions to the voluntary dismissal.” 9

Charles Allan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2363 (2d ed.

1987) (citing Hyde Constr. Co. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501 (10th Cir. 1968)). 

[A] conditional notice of dismissal is not within the scope of Rule 41(a) (1). The

purpose of that rule is to provide a means for terminating an action automatically

by filing with the clerk a notice of dismissal. That notice closes the file; no order

of the court is needed. If the conditioning of notices of dismissal is allowed, the

clerk of the court will be called upon to exercise a duty more than merely

ministerial. Instead of simply closing the file of a case once the notice of

dismissal is filed, the clerk will have to construe the condition and perhaps even

become a fact-finder to determine when the condition is satisfied. This defeats

the purpose of Rule 41(a) (1) to provide a quick, automatic means of ending an

action.

Hyde Constr. Co., 388 F.2d at 507; see also Amore v. Accor N. Am., Inc., 529 F. Supp. 2d 85,

(D.D.C. 2008) (“[P]laintiff’s alleged dismissal runs afoul of Rule 41(a)(1)’s requirement that

notices of dismissal must be unconditional.”). A notice is conditional if it “require[s] more than

the Clerk’s ministerial act of closing the court file.” Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Nooney

Kromback Co., 170 F.R.D. 467, 471 (E.D. Mo. 1997). 

The Court concludes that Petitioner’s Rule 41(a)(1) Notice of Dismissal is conditional

and therefore did not automatically terminate the action upon filing. Petitioner’s filings would

require the clerk of the court to determine whether the state court had ruled on Petitioner’s state

habeas before closing the file (Doc. # 34, 37 at 2).

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Order (Doc. # 52) is DENIED.

DATED: November 10, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02439-WQH-BGS Document 53 Filed 11/10/09 Page 3 of 3