Istifan v. U.S. Attorney General et al

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw the Petition for Habeas Corpus and DISMISSING CASE Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KUSSAI J. ISTIFAN,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 16-11048

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Kussai Istifan is an alien who filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting that the court order Respondents to
release him from a GPS ankle bracelet and excuse him from ISAP reporting. (Dkt. #1.)
Currently before the court is Petitioner’s Consent Motion to Withdraw Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice. (Dkt. #18.) Respondents dispute that
concurrence was sought before Petitioner filed his motion but express agreement with
the requested relief. (Dkt. #19.) They also indicate that Petitioner has since been
removed from ISAP reporting and curfew but remains under GPS monitoring. (Id.)
Petitioner’s motion requests that the court only dismiss his habeas petition but
allow him to proceed under his civil claims. The original Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus was filed on March 21, 2016 along with an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Dkts. ##1, 2.) This court granted this request. (Dkt. 5.) On May 10, 2016
Petitioner sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court purporting to add additional claims to his
petition. (Dkt. #14.) Presumably this is the source of the claims that Petitioner does not

want the court to dismiss along with his habeas petition. However, this letter was sent
more than twenty-one days after the original petition was filed, and at no point has
Petitioner sought leave to amend his petition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. To the extent that
Petitioner’s letter can itself be construed as a motion requesting leave to amend his
petition, it would be denied as it does not provide any argument for why leave to amend
should be granted. Therefore, the only claims properly before this court are those
contained in the original habeas petition. Since all parties agree that these claims
should be dismissed without prejudice, the court shall grant this relief.
Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED that Petitioner’s Consent Motion to Withdraw
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED and this case is dismissed in its
entirety.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 31, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, October 31, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\16-11048.ISTIFAN.grantwithdrawal.bss.wpd

2