Richardson v. Noe

S.D. Alabama

Richardson v. Noe

DecidedNovember 4, 2019

Docket1:18-cv-00503

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Richardson v. Noe, (S.D. Ala. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAM RICHARDSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-00503-KD-MU ) WARDEN GUY NOE, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER This action is before Court on Petitioner Sam Richardson’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 8). Richardson moves to dismiss his federal habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on basis that the state court has not yet been addressed his claims. Review of the docket indicates Richardson moved to dismiss this case without prejudice. (doc. 8). The Magistrate Judge ordered respondent to file any objection to this dismissal without prejudice on or before September 4, 2019. (doc. 9). Respondent did not file an objection. The Court construes Richardson’s motion as brought pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 The Rule allows a plaintiff, with the approval of the court, to dismiss an action voluntarily and without prejudice if the court deems dismissal proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Richardson’s action is dismissed without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this the 4th day of November 2019.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

1 Gilmore v. Hodges, 738 F. 3d 266, 281 (11th Cir. 2013) (“The law is clear that pro se pleadings are held to a less demanding standard than counseled pleadings and should be liberally construed.”); United States v. Knowles, 48 Fed. Appx. 985, 986 (11th Cir. 2011) (motions filed pro se must be construed liberally to afford review on any “legally justifiable base.”). KRISTI K. DuBOSE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAM RICHARDSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-00503-KD-MU ) WARDEN GUY NOE, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER This action is before Court on Petitioner Sam Richardson’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 8). Richardson moves to dismiss his federal habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on basis that the state court has not yet been addressed his claims. Review of the docket indicates Richardson moved to dismiss this case without prejudice. (doc. 8). The Magistrate Judge ordered respondent to file any objection to this dismissal without prejudice on or before September 4, 2019. (doc. 9). Respondent did not file an objection. The Court construes Richardson’s motion as brought pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 The Rule allows a plaintiff, with the approval of the court, to dismiss an action voluntarily and without prejudice if the court deems dismissal proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Richardson’s action is dismissed without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this the 4th day of November 2019.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

1 Gilmore v. Hodges, 738 F. 3d 266, 281 (11th Cir. 2013) (“The law is clear that pro se pleadings are held to a less demanding standard than counseled pleadings and should be liberally construed.”); United States v. Knowles, 48 Fed. Appx. 985, 986 (11th Cir. 2011) (motions filed pro se must be construed liberally to afford review on any “legally justifiable base.”). KRISTI K. DuBOSE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richardson v. Noe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-noe-alsd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack