Kristich v. Dickerson

W.D. Oklahoma

Kristich v. Dickerson

DecidedNovember 22, 2022

Docket5:22-cv-00849

StatusUnknown

This text of Kristich v. Dickerson (Kristich v. Dickerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kristich v. Dickerson, (W.D. Okla. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ORIN KRISTICH, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. CIV-22-849-R FNU DICKERSON, et al., ) Defendants. ) ORDER Plaintiff, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, brought this action alleging violations of his civil rights. On October 28, 2022, he filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss (Doc. No. 8), however, he failed to sign it. The document was returned, and Plaintiff was instructed to provide the Court a signed copy by November 16. (Doc. No. 10). Although his signed Amended Motion was received on November 21, the Court finds that Plaintiff's response was timely under the prison mailbox rule.’ Accordingly, his Amended Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DECLINES to adopt the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 9) as moot in light of the self-effectuating dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). IT IS SO ORDERED this 22"4 day of November 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' Under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s pleading is considered filed when the prisoner delivers it to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U. S. 266, 276 (1988); United States v. Harms, 138 F. App’x 101, 104 n.3 (10th Cir. 2005).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ORIN KRISTICH, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. CIV-22-849-R FNU DICKERSON, et al., ) Defendants. ) ORDER Plaintiff, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, brought this action alleging violations of his civil rights. On October 28, 2022, he filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss (Doc. No. 8), however, he failed to sign it. The document was returned, and Plaintiff was instructed to provide the Court a signed copy by November 16. (Doc. No. 10). Although his signed Amended Motion was received on November 21, the Court finds that Plaintiff's response was timely under the prison mailbox rule.’ Accordingly, his Amended Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DECLINES to adopt the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 9) as moot in light of the self-effectuating dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). IT IS SO ORDERED this 22"4 day of November 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' Under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s pleading is considered filed when the prisoner delivers it to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U. S. 266, 276 (1988); United States v. Harms, 138 F. App’x 101, 104 n.3 (10th Cir. 2005).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kristich v. Dickerson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kristich-v-dickerson-okwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack