Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00665/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00665-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Davenport
Petitioner
John W. Haviland
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN DAVENPORT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JOHN W. HAVILAND, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

1:09-cv-00665-JLT HC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ADMINISTRATIVELY RE-OPEN CASE

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 20)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE FILE

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding via counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed the instant petition on March 23, 2009. (Doc. 1). On April 22, 2009, the

Court granted Petitioner’s request to stay the proceedings to permit Petitioner to exhaust his claims

in state court. (Doc. 13). In that order, the Court required Petitioner to file an initial status report

within thirty days and, thereafter, to file regular status reports every sixty days. Petitioner filed the

initial status report on May 22, 2009. (Doc. 15). Subsequently, Petitioner filed status reports on

June 22, 2009, July 23, 2009, and on September 9, 2009. (Docs. 16, 17, & 18). In the most recent

status report, Petitioner’s counsel indicated that the Kern County Superior Court had ruled that

Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel had been denied and had

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:09-cv-00665-TAG Document 21 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 4
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

scheduled a re-sentencing hearing for September 30, 2009. (Doc. 18). However, Petitioner did not

file any status reports thereafter. Accordingly, on March 8, 2010, the Court issued an Order to Show

Cause why the stay should not be lifted and the case should not proceed. (Doc. 19). On March 9,

2010, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the petition, indicating that Petitioner

had recently received the relief he was seeking in the Kern County Superior Court. (Doc. 20). 

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

and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). A 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 (9 Cir. 20010); see also Stevedoring Svcs. Of America v. th

Armilla Int’l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9 Cir. 1989)(stating that the purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is “to th

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.” See Smith, 263 F.3d at

976. 

Here, Respondent has not entered an appearance in the case, much less filed a responsive

pleading. Accordingly, Petitioner may voluntarily dismiss this petition without leave of Court. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(a). Petitioner, through his legal counsel, has made such a request based on the fact that

Petitioner has received the relief he sought in the state court. Thus, the Court will grant Petitioner’s

motion to dismiss.

Moreover, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. A state prisoner seeking a

writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition,

and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:09-cv-00665-TAG Document 21 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 4
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

(2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28

U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge,

the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in

which the proceeding is held.

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a

warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a

criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention

pending removal proceedings.

(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not

be taken to the court of appeals from--

(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention

complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or

issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denied a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

when a petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must establish that “reasonable jurists

could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a

different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further’.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,

893 (1983)).

In the present case, the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal

habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. 

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to administratively re-open the case;

2. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the petition (Doc. 20), is GRANTED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED; 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 3

Case 1:09-cv-00665-TAG Document 21 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the file; and,

5. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 4

Case 1:09-cv-00665-TAG Document 21 Filed 03/22/10 Page 4 of 4