Kishore Rattan v. Warden

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

KISHORE RATTAN,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:26cv1102 DRL-SJF

WARDEN,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER Immigration detainee Kishore Rattan, a litigant representing himself, filed a motion to withdraw his habeas petition. ECF 2. He explains, “Without my permission, a detainee at Miami Correctional Facility filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under my name, DOC #, and A#.” Id. at 1. The habeas petition was drafted by detainee Muharram Balkanli. See generally ECF 3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order “before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The respondents have not appeared or filed an answer in this case, so dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is appropriate. Although the document is titled as a motion, it is self-effectuating under Rule 41 and established “the immediate dismissal of the suit” when it was filed. Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Smith v. Potter, 513 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 2008) (“miscaptioned motion itself effected the dismissal of the suit”); Edwards-Brown v. Crete-Monee 201-U Sch. Dist., 491 Fed. Appx. 744, 746 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[The] district court properly construed [pro se plaintiff’s] ‘motion’ for voluntary dismissal as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1). That she incorrectly called it a ‘motion to

dismiss’ is irrelevant.”). For these reasons, the court: (1) CONSTRUES the motion (ECF 2) as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); (2) DIRECTS the clerk to dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.

SO ORDERED.

August 31, 2026 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court