Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01249/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01249-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
K. Mendoza-Powers
Respondent
Ronald Moreno
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD MORENO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01249-LJO-TAG HC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL (Doc. 9)

O R D ER DENYI NG AS MOOT

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc.

8)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 12, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition. (Doc. 1). On March 1, 2007,

the Court ordered Respondent to file a response. (Doc. 6). On April 30, 2007, Respondent filed a

motion to dismiss in lieu of a response. (Doc. 8). Respondent contended that the petition raises

claims over which the Court lacks jurisdiction, and also notes that Petitioner has another petition

pending in case no. 1:06-cv-01241-LJO-SMS, which raises the same issue regarding the 2004 review

of parole. (Id.). On June 1, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant motion to voluntary dismiss his

petition. (Doc. 9). In that motion, Petitioner acknowledges that he has another petition, case no.

1:06-cv-01241-LJO-SMS, raising substantially the same issues, that is already pending in this Court. 

Case 1:06-cv-01249-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 08/07/07 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

(Id.). 

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a petitioner’s request for

dismissal may be granted by order fo the Court. A district court should grant a motion for voluntary

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant “can show that it will suffer some plain legal

prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9 Cir. 2001). Here, Petitioner has th

indicated that the petition pending in case no. 1:06-cv-01241-LJO-SMS raises the same issues as the

instant petition; thus, the Court perceives no “plain legal prejudice” to Petitioner upon granting his

motion for voluntary dismissal. Additionally, it does not appear that Respondent would suffer any

prejudice as a result of dismissal since Respondent has already moved for dismissal of the petition in

part due to the pendency of case no. 1:06-cv-01241-LJO-SMS. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9), is GRANTED;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 8), is DENIED as MOOT; 

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

4. This Court’s clerk close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01249-LJO -TAG Document 10 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 2