Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00559-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesse Collins
Petitioner
J. Soto
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 22, 2015, Petitioner filed a request to withdraw his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Although Petitioner cites no rule, the Court construes 

the request as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), 

which, in relevant part, reads as follows:

(A)...the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of 

dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary 

judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared....(B) 

Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.

In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:

Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to 

service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Concha v. Longon, 

62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th cir. 1995)(citing Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 

813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff 

JESSE COLLINS,

 Petitioner,

v.

J. SOTO,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00559-JLT

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF

PETITIONER’S RULE 41(a) NOTICE OF 

DISMISSAL

Case 1:15-cv-00559-JLT Document 12 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 2
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

files a notice of dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary 

judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id. 

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F. 3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).

No responsive pleadings have been filed in this case and it appears that no such answers or 

summary judgment motions have been served. Because Petitioner has exercised his right to 

voluntarily dismiss his petition under Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 

692.

Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this 

case in light of Petitioner’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) requested dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00559-JLT Document 12 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 2