Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00978-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Hedgpeth
Respondent
Terry Pettis
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

TERRY PETTIS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:09-cv-00978-LJO-JLT HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

GRANT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 14)

ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

On May 29, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant petition in the Sacramento Division of this

Court, challenging his conviction in the Fresno County Superior Court for, inter alia, first degree

murder and his sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole plus 25 years. (Doc. 1). On

June 4, 2009, the matter was transferred to the Fresno Division. (Doc. 3). On July 17, 2009, the

Court ordered Respondent to file an answer. (Doc. 7). On September 14, 2009, Respondent file the

answer to the petition. (Doc. 12). On October 28, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant Motion to

Dismiss the petition, explaining that he had “been ill-advised in that Petitioner has failed to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Doc. 14, p. 1). Petitioner also explains that he had not

Case 1:09-cv-00978-LJO-JLT Document 16 Filed 01/06/10 Page 1 of 3
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

been aware that he must first present his claims to the state courts before presenting them to this

Court. (Id.). Petitioner requests dismissal of the petition without prejudice. (Id.). 

Any opposition by Respondent to Petitioner’s motion to dismiss was due on or before

December 3, 2009. To date, Respondent has not filed a response to said motion.

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 had filed an answer before Petitioner filed his request for dismissal. No

stipulation for dismissal has been filed in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Accordingly, the

motion to dismiss lies in the discretion of the Court, and the Court should grant Petitioner’s motion

unless Respondent will suffer legal prejudice thereby. Smith, 263 F.3d at 975. Without question,

Respondent has already expended time and resources in this case by filing an answer to the instant

petition. Nevertheless, in the ensuing two months since Petitioner filed his motion to dismiss,

Respondent has not filed an opposition to Petitioner’s motion nor has Respondent suggested in any

way that Respondent would be legally prejudiced should the Court grant the motion to dismiss. 

Nothing in the record now before the Court suggests that the dismissal is being sought for improper

Case 1:09-cv-00978-LJO-JLT Document 16 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 3
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

motives or to gain a tactical advantage. It appears to the Court that, upon review of the arguments in

Respondent’s answer, Petitioner has concluded that his claims lack merit and has simply decided to

abandon his petition.

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Respondent would not be legally

prejudiced by the dismissal of this action, and therefore recommends the same.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss

the petition (Doc. 14), be GRANTED.

This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

twenty (20) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendations, any party

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the

Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail)

after service of the Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00978-LJO-JLT Document 16 Filed 01/06/10 Page 3 of 3