Johnson v. Keller

Filing 14

ORDER that Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw 13 is Granted, and his Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus {1} is Dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 01/20/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:11-cv-51-RJC
CHRISTOPHER LEON JOHNSON,
Petitioner,

v.

ALVIN W. KELLER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on Petitioner Christopher Leon Johnson’s
(“Petitioner”) “Motion to Withdraw,” (Doc. No. 13), his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus”
(“Petition”), (Doc. No. 1).
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed his “Petition,” (Doc. No. 1), on March 14, 2011. Respondent filed an

“Answer,” (Doc. No. 4), and “Motion for Summary Judgement,” (Doc. No. 5), on April 1, 2011.
Petitioner then filed a “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,” (Doc. No. 9), which was denied
by this Court. On July 7, 2011, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Withdraw,” (Doc. No. 13), so that
he could “re-file to lower courts the right way.” Respondent has not objected to Petitioner’s
“Motion to Withdraw,” (Doc. No. 13).
II.

ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a

court order unless the opposing party has already served an answer or a motion for summary
judgement. FED . R. CIV . P. 41(a)(1)(A). In this case, Respondent filed an “Answer,” (Doc. No.

4), and a “Motion for Summary Judgement,” (Doc. No. 5), prior to Petitioner filing his “Motion
to Withdraw,” (Doc. No. 13). Therefore, an order from this Court is required pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2). Respondent has not responded or objected to Petitioner’s request. Therefore, the Court
will GRANT Petitioner’s “Motion to Withdraw,” (Doc. No. 13).
IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion to Withdraw,” (Doc. No.

13), is GRANTED, and his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” (Doc. No. 1), is DISMISSED
without prejudice.

Signed: January 20, 2012

2