Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-03001/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-03001-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Arnold
Respondent
Chan Seh Park
Petitioner

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAN SEH PARK,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-3001 MCE DAD P

ORDER

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

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner therein seeks expungement of a prison disciplinary conviction 

on the grounds that it would accelerate his date of parole from state prison.

On March 30, 2015, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the pending federal habeas 

petition (i) as time-barred, (ii) for failure to present a cognizable basis for federal habeas relief, 

and (iii) for failure to exhaust the claims for relief in state court. (ECF No. 10.)

On April 13, 2015, in lieu of an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioner 

filed a document entitled “Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Petition Without Prejudice.” 

(ECF No. 12.) Petitioner therein states:

Having found respondent, argument true, petitioner move for 

dismissal of this action without prejudice, to permit him an 

opportunity to give the state supreme court to either pass upon and 

or correct alleged violations of his federally protected rights, to 

serve and file a viable complaint and properly address issues of 

Case 2:14-cv-03001-MCE-DAD Document 13 Filed 08/28/15 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

‘timeliness’ and upon giving the ‘state’ a considerable time to 

address and resolve alleged violation of petitioner’s federal rights, 

seek federal habeas review and relief based therefrom.

(sic) (Id. at 2.)

The court interprets the quoted statement as a request that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); see also Rule 12, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 

2254.

Dated: August 27, 2015

DAD:10

park3001.159

Case 2:14-cv-03001-MCE-DAD Document 13 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 2