From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pate v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Jun 23, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19cv910 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 23, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19cv910 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:14cr125(1)

06-23-2020

FRANK EDWIN PATE, #30430-408 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se Movant Frank Edwin Pate filed the above-styled and numbered Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On December 23, 2019, Movant filed a motion to dismiss his case (Dkt. #19). Voluntary dismissals are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) that provides, in pertinent part, the movant " 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." "Unless the notice...states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). The notice of dismissal is self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the District Court is required. In re Amerijet Int'l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Thus, once a movant has moved to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the case is effectively terminated; the Court has no power or discretion to deny his right to dismiss or to attach any condition or burden to that right. Williams v. Ezell, 531 F.2d 1261, 1264 (5th Cir. 1976); In re Amerijet Int'l, Inc., 785 F.3d at 973; Carter v. United States, 547 F.2d 258, 259 (5th Cir. 1977) (party has absolute right to dismiss his legal action under Rule 41(a) prior to the filing of an answer or motion for summary judgment).

In the present case, no answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed; thus, Movant is entitled to the voluntary dismissal of the case without prejudice. Movant's case was dismissed the moment the notice (Dkt. #19) was filed with the Clerk. Moreover, after a notice of voluntary dismissal is filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the case. In re Amerijet Int'l, Inc., 785 F.3d at 973.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Movant's notice of dismissal (Dkt. #19) is self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself, and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). All motions by any party not previously ruled upon are DENIED.

SIGNED this 23rd day of June, 2020.

/s/_________

AMOS L. MAZZANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Pate v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Jun 23, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19cv910 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 23, 2020)
Case details for

Pate v. United States

Case Details

Full title:FRANK EDWIN PATE, #30430-408 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 23, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19cv910 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 23, 2020)