Smith v. United States District Court

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

CHARLES SMITH,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 19-3131-SAC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On September 20, 2019, the Court received correspondence from petitioner which reads, in part, “Drop all lawsuits. Please and thank you.” The Court has liberally construed that correspondence as a motion to voluntarily dismiss the actions filed by petitioner and pending before the Court. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes a district court, upon a defendant’s motion, to order the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or ‘a court order.’” Young v. U.S., 316 F. App'x 764, 771 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). “This rule has been interpreted as permitting district courts to dismiss actions sua sponte when one of these conditions is met.” Id. (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)). “In addition, it is well established in this circuit that a district court is not obligated to follow any particular procedures when dismissing an action without prejudice under Rule 41(b).” Young, IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED petitioner’s correspondence is liberally construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal, and the motion (Doc. 6) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 24th day of September, 2019, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow SAM A. CROW U.S. Senior District Judge