Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00580/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00580-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrel Adams
Respondent
Salvador David Gerolaga
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

—o0o—

SALVADOR DAVID GEROLAGA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DARREL ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-00580 OWW TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO GRANT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

VOLUNTARILY DISMISS PETITION

(Doc. 12), AND TO DENY ALL PENDING

MOTIONS AS MOOT (Docs. 8, 9, 10, 11)

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS

BE FILED WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on April 16, 2007. 

(Doc. 1). On November 1, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant motion to dismiss, contending that

he has “dropped out” of gang involvement and is proceeding through “debriefing” that changes

his confinement and custody such that his constitutional rights are no longer being violated. 

(Doc. 12, p. 1). The motion is signed under penalty of perjury. (Id.). 

On June 18, 2007, prior to filing the motion to dismiss, Petitioner filed a motion for an

order directing the CSP-Corcoran SHU law library to make copies of pleadings and exhibits for

him. (Doc. 8). On July 12, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to supplement ground one of

the petition. (Doc. 9). On July 12, 2007, Petitioner also filed a motion for leave to supplement

the petition and/or add exhibits to the record in this action. (Doc. 10). On July 12, 2007,

Petitioner filed another motion for leave to supplement the petition and/or add further exhibits to

the record in this action. (Doc. 11). 

Case 1:07-cv-00580-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 12/10/07 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 A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective upon filing; no court order is required. See 1

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A), effective December 1, 2007. 

2

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and subject to other

provisions of the law not applicable here, “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.” 

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.

1999)(quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). Otherwise, an 1

action shall not be dismissed except upon order of the court and upon terms that the court deems

proper. Id. Here, no answer or other responsive pleading has been served or filed. Further, in

light of Petitioner’s request to dismiss this action, all other pending motions are moot and should

be denied. 

 RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court makes the following recommendations: 

1. That Petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 12), be GRANTED;

2. That all pending motions (Docs. 8, 9, 10, 11) be DENIED as moot; and 

3. That the Clerk of the Court be ordered to close the file in this case.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this 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 fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, 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.” The District Judge will then review the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that

///

///

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00580-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 12/10/07 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

3

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00580-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 12/10/07 Page 3 of 3