Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00618/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00618-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VESTER L. PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

HEDI LACKER,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-00618-DAD-SAB-HC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

CLOSE CASE

(Doc. No. 11)

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

On July 29, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

recommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to 

exhaust his claims for relief by first presenting them to the state high court. (Doc. No. 10.) The

findings and recommendations were served on petitioner with notice that any objections thereto

were to be filed within thirty days of the date of service of the order. (Id.) On August 12, 2016, 

petitioner filed a notice to dismiss his petition without prejudice because “[t]he matter has 

become moot at this time.” (Doc. No. 11.) 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the plaintiff may 

dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing 

party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

Voluntary dismissal under this rule requires no action on the part of the court and divests the 

Case 1:16-cv-00618-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 09/08/16 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

court of jurisdiction upon the filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal. See United States v. 475 

Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing consequences of voluntary

dismissals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)). Rule 41(a)(1) has been 

found to apply in the habeas context where the respondent had not yet filed an answer to the 

petition. See Clark v. Tansy, 13 F.3d 1407, 1411 (10th Cir. 1993); Williams v. Clarke, 82 F.3d 

270, 273 (8th Cir. 1996); Dean v. Johnson, Case No. CV 15-02971 BRO (RAO), 2016 WL 

1170877, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2016).

In this case, respondent has not served either an answer or a motion for summary 

judgment. Thus, petitioner’s notice of dismissal was effective upon filing and without a court 

order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). In light of petitioner’s notice of 

dismissal without prejudice, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

1 All other 

pending motions and matters are rendered moot by this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Petitioner is advised that there is a one-year statute of limitation in which a federal petition for 

writ of habeas corpus must be filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations period is tolled 

while a “properly filed” application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). That limitations period is not tolled under § 2244(d) during the time 

period that a petition for habeas relief is pending in federal court. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 

167, 181-82 (2001).

Case 1:16-cv-00618-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 2