(HC) French v. Young ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARIN JEROME FRENCH, Case No. 1:19-cv-01306-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE MOTIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. AND CLOSE CASE 14 S. YOUNG, (ECF Nos. 10, 17) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Darin Jerome French is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In the petition, Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to 19 release to home confinement or a halfway house pursuant to the changes enacted under the First 20 Step Act. 21 On February 6, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10). On May 22, 22 2020, in lieu of a response to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the 23 action as moot because he is now qualified to be placed on home confinement. (ECF No. 17). 24 Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the plaintiff 25 may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the 26 opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Voluntary dismissal under this rule grants a plaintiff an absolute right to dismiss without prejudice, requires no action on the part of the court, and divests the court of jurisdiction 4:40 UV VELOUR SE MMU BO PU Ore PAY eI 1 | upon the filing of the notice of voluntary dismissal. See United States v. 475 Martin Lane, 545 2 | F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing consequences of voluntary dismissals pursuant to 3 | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)). 4 In this case, Respondent has not served either an answer or a motion for summary 5 | judgment. The Court construes Petitioner’s motion to dismiss as a notice of voluntary dismissal. 6 | See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82 (2003) (courts may recharacterize a pro se 7 | motion to “create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and 8 | its underlying legal basis”); Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) 9 | (courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings and motions liberally). Therefore, Petitioner’s 10 | notice of dismissal was effective upon filing and without a court order pursuant to Federal Rule 11 | of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)Q@). 12 For the sake of clarity, in light of Petitioner’s notice of dismissal, IT IS HEREBY 13 | ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE the motions to dismiss 14 | (ECF Nos. 10, 17) and to CLOSE the case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17| Dated: _ June 18, 2020 [sf ey — 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28