Opinion
NO. 4:20-CV-00051-CDL-MSH
10-05-2020
JAMES DORSEY, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN SISK, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court is a document filed by James Dorsey, a prisoner currently confined in the Gwinnett County Jail in Lawrenceville, Georgia, that was initially docketed as a petition seeking habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 1). Because it was unclear whether Plaintiff intended to file a habeas corpus petition or a complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court ordered Plaintiff to recast his pleading on the appropriate form and either pay the requisite filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See generally Order, Apr. 22, 2020, ECF No. 5. In response, Plaintiff indicated that he wanted to "pursue both claims." Am. Pet. 1, June 30, 2020, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff thus filed several documents, including documents he labeled as amendments to his "civil rights complaint" (see, e.g., ECF Nos. 9, 13) and others labeled as amendments to his federal habeas corpus petition challenging his pretrial detention in Franklin County, Georgia (see, e.g., ECF No. 10). Plaintiff also paid the $5.00 filing fee required in a habeas corpus action, but he did not pay the $400.00 filing fee required in a § 1983 case.
On October 1, 2020, the Court received Plaintiff's request to "withdraw civil case 4:20-cv-51 (CDL) petition for writ of habeas corpus from the court record" and "to close the case to prevent any legal issues that may arise from having an open case." Mot. Dismiss 1, ECF No. 16. In this same motion, Plaintiff requested to "file this amendment to civil rights case 4:20-cv-51-CDL-MSH Dorsey v. Sisk" and noted that "this amendment comes in the form of a motion to withdraw complaint and close case." Id. at 2. Plaintiff thus appears to intend to voluntarily dismiss all his pending claims, whether categorized as claims for federal habeas corpus relief or for relief pursuant to § 1983. Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 16) be GRANTED, that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice, and that Plaintiff's pending motions (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9, 11) be DENIED as moot.
OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to these recommendations with the Honorable Clay D. Land, United States District Judge, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of this Recommendation. The parties may seek an extension of time in which to file written objections, provided a request for an extension is filed prior to the deadline for filing written objections. Failure to object in accordance with the provisions of § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district judge's order based on factual and legal conclusions to which no objection was timely made. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
SO RECOMMENDED, this 5th day of October, 2020.
/s/ Stephen Hyles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE