Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:17-cv-126
03-27-2018
JASON J. CLARK, Petitioner, v. WARDEN MARTY ALLEN, Respondent.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Jason Clark's ("Clark") Notice of Withdrawal of Complaint, (doc. 4), which the Court construes as Clark's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Court GRANTS Clark's Motion and DISMISSES Clark's Petition without prejudice. See Perkins v. Daniels, Civil Action No. 14-00077-WS-N, 2014 WL 4322389, at *2-3 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 29, 2014) (recognizing Rule 41(a)'s applicability to Section 2254 petitions).
Although Clark provided no legal basis for his Motion, the Court construes Clark's Motion as being made pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "Federal courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category." Retic v. United States, 215 F. App'x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003)). Federal courts "may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion's claim and its underlying legal basis." Id. (quoting Castro, 540 U.S. at 381-82). --------
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter an appropriate judgment of dismissal.
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of March, 2018.
/s/_________
J. RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA