From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kendricks v. People

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 17, 2015
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01374-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01374-JLT

04-17-2015

TORRANCE KENDRICKS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 11) ORDER REQUIRING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on August 27, 2014. (Doc. 1). On February 13, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion to dismiss the petition, indicating that he had filed a similar petition in this Court in case no. 1:14-cv-01496-GSA and had dismissed that petition due to its lack of exhaustion. (Doc. 11, p. 2). The Court dismissed that petition on November 18, 2014. Petitioner had believed that this petition would also be dismissed for the same reason. (Id.).

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. Id. Here, no answer has been served or filed. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to dismiss the petition without leave of Court. Id. Moreover, the Court notes that the instant petition appears to be the result of a miscommunication between Petitioner and the Court in which the Clerk of the Court filed two petitions that were intended to be a single petition, thus generating confusion over the dismissal of one petition and the non-dismissal of the instant petition.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a United States District Judge to this case.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11), be GRANTED;

This Findings and Recommendations is 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 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 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." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17 , 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Kendricks v. People

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 17, 2015
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01374-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015)
Case details for

Kendricks v. People

Case Details

Full title:TORRANCE KENDRICKS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 17, 2015

Citations

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01374-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015)