Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02282/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02282-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JOHN OLIVER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2282 FCD EFB P

vs.

JOHN HAVILAND,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 18, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. 

Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and respondent has filed a

response.

In his response, respondent argues that the magistrate judge erroneously found the

motion to dismiss untimely in footnote one of the findings and recommendations. The

magistrate judge concluded that the motion was only one day late and rejected petitioner’s

Case 2:08-cv-02282-FCD-EFB Document 17 Filed 03/16/10 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

2

argument that it be denied on that grounds. Although the magistrate judge addressed the motion

on its merits, respondent’s objection point out that with the exclusion of the weekend, the motion

was timely filed. Respondent is correct that, considering the three-day extension provided by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), the motion was timely filed. However, it makes no

difference as the magistrate considered and addressed the motion on its merits, recommending

that it be granted.

In his objections, petitioner asks the Court to proceed on the merits of his claim

despite the magistrate judge’s conclusion that petitioner failed to state a federal claim for relief. 

However, due to the vague nature of petitioner’s allegations, the Court is unable to evaluate the

merits, as the magistrate judge determined. Findings & Recommendations at 3 (“Without

knowing what federal right is being asserted, respondent cannot defend against the claim, and the

Court cannot evaluate the merits of the claim.”). Petitioner asks that, if the Court will not

determine his claim on the merits, he be allowed to withdraw his petition. The Court construes

petitioner’s request as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(a)(1)(A)(i). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. 

As no answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed, the Court will grant petitioner’s

request and order that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. Respondent’s June 16, 2009

motion to dismiss is therefore moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request that he be

allowed to withdraw his petition is construed as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the petition is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the

Court is therefore directed to enter petitioner’s dismissal without prejudice.

DATED: March 15, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02282-FCD-EFB Document 17 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2