Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01339/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01339-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Brown
Respondent
Larry Young
Petitioner

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 September 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings 

and Recommendations to dismiss the petition because it was entirely unexhausted. (Doc. 13). On 

September 25, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant Notice of Withdrawal of his § 2254 petition. (Doc. 

14). 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:

LARRY YOUNG,

 Petitioner,

v.

JERRY BROWN,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01339-AWI-JLT

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO CLOSE CASE IN LIGHT OF

PETITIONER’S RULE 41(a) NOTICE OF 

DISMISSAL

(Doc. No. 13)

Case 1:15-cv-01339-AWI-JLT Document 15 Filed 10/30/15 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

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 

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 answers or motions for summary judgment or dismissal 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 will be terminated. 

See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to CLOSE this case in light of Petitioner’s Rule 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) requested dismissal; and

2. The Court declines to adopt the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. No. 13) as moot, in light 

of Petitioner’s Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01339-AWI-JLT Document 15 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 2