Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00963/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00963-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vasile Valy Rosca, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Warden Gilky, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0963-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 (doc. 1); respondent’s answer and motion to dismiss (doc. 9); petitioner’s

response, which we construe as a Rule 41(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., motion for voluntary

dismissal of his habeas petition (doc. 10); respondent’s response to the Rule 41(a)(2) motion

(doc. 12); and petitioner’s reply (doc. 13). We also have before us the report and

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that we grant

petitioner’s Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss without prejudice (doc. 14). No objection to the

report and recommendation was filed. 

Petitioner asserted in his habeas petition that he is entitled to sentencing credit for time

spent in home detention pending the unsuccessful appeal of his criminal conviction. He now

concedes that this position is not legally supportable and moves to dismiss his petition.

Petitioner’s Response at 1. He seeks dismissal without prejudice, however, in order to

Case 2:08-cv-00963-FJM Document 15 Filed 10/09/08 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 -

preserve his second ground for relief—that his time spent in home detention should serve as

a basis for discretionary modification of his term of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. §

3583(e)(2). Because plaintiff has conceded that his claim for sentence reduction is without

merit, respondent is entitled to a dismissal with prejudice on this claim. However, because

the respondent does not argue that it will suffer “legal prejudice” as a result of the dismissal,

see Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996), the dismissal

is without prejudice to petitioner’s claim regarding modification of his term of supervised

release. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING petitioner’s Rule 41(a)(2) motion to

dismiss his petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice with respect to the sentence

reduction claim, and without prejudice with respect to the claim for modification of the term

of supervised release. 

DATED this 8th day of October, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00963-FJM Document 15 Filed 10/09/08 Page 2 of 2