Jackson v. Ponce
Filing
16
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 04/26/16 DISMISSING CASE pursuant to FRCP 41(a). CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, State Bar #122664
Federal Defender
CAROLYN M. WIGGIN, Bar #182732
Assistant Federal Defender
801 I Street, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: 916-498-5700/Fax 916-498-5710
carolyn_wiggin@fd.org
Attorneys for Petitioner
CLIFTON JAMES JACKSON
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CLIFTON JAMES JACKSON,
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL; ORDER
FELICIA PONCE, Warden,
15
No. Case No. 2:15-CV-01700 GGH
Respondent.
16
17
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioner,
18
CLIFTON JAMES JACKSON, by and through his counsel Assistant Federal
19
Defender Carolyn M. Wiggin, hereby requests the voluntarily dismissal of Mr.
20
Jackson’s petition for writ of habeas, filed August 10, 2015. He respectfully
21
//
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
1
requests the Court issue order lodged herewith.
1
2
3
Dated: April 21, 2016
HEATHER E. WILLIAMS
Federal Defender
4
5
6
/s/ Carolyn M. Wiggin
CAROLYN M. WIGGIN
Assistant Federal Defender
7
8
9
Attorney for Petitioner
CLIFTON JAMES JACKSON
10
11
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and good cause
12
13
14
15
16
appearing therefor, the petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed August 10, 2015
(ECF 1), is DISMISSED.1
Dated: April 26, 2016
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
/Jack1700.41
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The parties have consented to the undersigned presiding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(c).
Because respondent’s motion is neither an answer nor motion for summary judgment (a motion
which goes to the merits of the action), this voluntary dismissal is appropriate pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)..
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?