Filed: Nov. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY , Chief Magistrate Judge . This cause is before the court on Petitioner's motion to voluntarily dismiss (ECF No. 10). Petitioner requests dismissal of his 2241 petition without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a) ( id. ). The provisions of Rule 41 provide: (a) Voluntary Dismissal. (1) By the Plaintiff. (A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY , Chief Magistrate Judge . This cause is before the court on Petitioner's motion to voluntarily dismiss (ECF No. 10). Petitioner requests dismissal of his 2241 petition without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a) ( id. ). The provisions of Rule 41 provide: (a) Voluntary Dismissal. (1) By the Plaintiff. (A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss ..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY, Chief Magistrate Judge.
This cause is before the court on Petitioner's motion to voluntarily dismiss (ECF No. 10). Petitioner requests dismissal of his § 2241 petition without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a) (id.).
The provisions of Rule 41 provide:
(a) Voluntary Dismissal.
(1) By the Plaintiff.
(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff 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; or
(ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.
(B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. . . .
(2) By Court Order; Effect. Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the defendant's objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication. Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
Here, Respondent filed a response to the § 2241 petition, requesting dismissal of the petition on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider it under § 2241 (see ECF No. 8). Respondent's pleading is in the nature of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), instead of an answer or motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Petitioner is automatically entitled to dismiss this habeas action. See Plains Growers, Inc. by and through Florists' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ickes-Braun Glasshouses, Inc., 474 F.2d 250, 254 (5th Cir. 1973) (defendant's filing of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and challenging service of process did not preclude subsequent notice of dismissal by plaintiff under Rule 41(a)(1)); Universidad Cent. Del Caribe, Inc. v. Liaison Comm. on Med. Educ., 760 F.2d 14, 19 (1st Cir. 1985); Kilpatrick v. Tex. & P.R. Co., 166 F.2d 788 (2d Cir. 1948) (defendant's filing of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction did not preclude subsequent notice of dismissal by plaintiff under Rule 41(a)(1)); La. Envtl. Action Network v. Jackson, 685 F.Supp.2d 43, 46 (D.D.C. 2010) (plaintiff's motion to withdraw its claims against state defendant for lack of supplemental jurisdiction would be treated as notice of voluntary dismissal rather than motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and thus plaintiff had right to withdraw its claims against defendant without leave of court, even though defendant had filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where defendant had not yet filed an answer to the complaint or moved for summary judgment); Cruz-Mendez. v. Hosp. Gen. Castaner, Inc., 637 F.Supp.2d 73, 76-77 (D.P.R. 2009) (in medical malpractice action brought by plaintiffs against hospital and other defendants, voluntary dismissal of action without prejudice was appropriate; defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction did not defeat right of dismissal by notice without prejudice, defendants did not answer complaint nor file motion for summary judgment). Further, because Petitioner requests dismissal without prejudice, and Respondent has not pleaded a counterclaim—nor does it appear that Respondent will suffer "clear legal prejudice" if the habeas petition is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice—the case will be dismissed without prejudice. See McCants v. Ford Motor Co., 781 F.2d 855, 856-57 (11th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. That Petitioner's motion to voluntarily dismiss (ECF No. 10) be GRANTED; and
2. That this habeas action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
