Padilla et al v. Hickenlooper
ORDER granting 4 Motion for Dismissal, as of 4/8/16, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 4/13/16. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00746-GPG
ALFONSO PADILLA, and
JONATHAN R. GONZALEZ,
CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Applicants are in the custody of the Denver County Jail. On March 31, 2016, they
submitted pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to U.S.C. § 2241.
(ECF No. 1). Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an Order to Cure
Deficiencies on April 7, 2016. (ECF No. 3). On April 8, 2016, Applicants filed a “Motion
for Dismissal” and stated that they desired to dismiss this action. (ECF No. 4). The action,
therefore, is dismissed as follows.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A) provides that Athe 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 . . . .@ Respondents have not filed any responsive
pleading in this action. Further, a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is
effective immediately upon the filing of a written notice of dismissal, and no subsequent
court order is necessary. See 8-41 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore=s Federal Practice
' 41.33(6)(a) (3d ed. 1997); Hyde Constr. Co. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501, 507 (10th
Cir. 1968). The case, therefore, will be closed as of April 8, 2016, the date the Motion for
Dismissal was filed with the Court. See Hyde Constr. Co., 388 F.2d at 507.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion for Dismissal (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED and this action
is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the voluntary dismissal is without prejudice and is
effective as of April 8, 2016, the date Applicants filed the Motion for Dismissal in this
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?