WILLIANS ALCIDES PEREZ PEREZ v. WARDEN OF CALIFORNIA CITY CORRECTIONS CENTER, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 WILLIANS ALCIDES PEREZ PEREZ, No. 1:26-cv-01675-DAD-CSK 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS PURSUANT 13 v. TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(2) CORRECTIONS CENTER, et al. (Doc. No. 23) 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 Petitioner is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement 20 (“ICE”). (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner was represented by counsel when he filed his petition on 21 February 28, 2026, but this court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw on May 22, 2026, and 22 petitioner now proceeds pro se in this habeas action. (Doc. No. 22.) On May 26, 2026, the court 23 received petitioner’s pro se motion seeking to voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to Federal 24 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). (Doc. No. 23.) This motion was signed on May 18, 2026. (Id. 25 at 3.) Therein, petitioner requests that the court dismiss this petition without prejudice, allowing 26 him to re-file his claims in the future. (Id.) Respondents have not filed an opposition or 27 statement of non-opposition to petitioner’s motion. 28 1 Rule 41(a)(2) states that, “[e]xcept as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be 2 dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” 3 Granting or denying a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal is within the district court’s sound discretion. 4 Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int’l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989). For the 5 reasons explained below, the court does not consider dismissal proper under these circumstances. 6 First, petitioner may not dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) because 7 respondents have filed a response to the petition (Doc. No. 7). Additionally, the parties have not 8 stipulated to a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 9 Second, assuming the prison mailbox rule applies, it appears that petitioner filed this pro 10 se motion to dismiss prior to the court’s order relieving his counsel. The prison mailbox rule 11 states that a motion is deemed “filed” by an inmate on the date it is delivered to prison authorities 12 for forwarding to the court clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The prison 13 mailbox rule “applies to pro se federal habeas petitions.” Melville v. Shinn, 68 F.4th 1154, 1159 14 (9th Cir. 2023); see also Rodriguez-Garcia v. Warden, FCI-Herlong, No. 2:23-cv-0849-SCR-P, 15 2025 WL 755698 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:23-cv- 16 00849-TLN-SCR, 2025 WL 1151006 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2025) (applying the prison mailbox rule 17 to an immigration related habeas petition). While petitioner’s motion to dismiss does not state 18 that it was delivered to prison authorities for mailing on May 18, 2026, petitioner signed and 19 dated the motion that day and nothing before the court suggests that the motion was mailed after 20 May 22, 2026, when the court issued its order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw. Thus, 21 petitioner’s pro se motion to dismiss was improperly filed because he was still represented by 22 counsel when he filed the motion. See Riel v. Warden, San Quentin State Prison, No. 2:01-cv- 23 0507-MCE-DB, 2023 WL 2413825, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2023); United States v. Brayshaw, 24 No. 2:14-mc-00088-MCE-KJN, 2018 WL 534120, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (noting that 25 under Rule 11, a party “cannot both be represented and file her own motions”). 26 Finally, petitioner requests that the requested dismissal be without prejudice so that he 27 may re-file his claims in the future. (Id.) On May 12, 2026, petitioner moved to voluntarily 28 dismiss a separate, subsequently filed habeas petition challenging his current detention and 1 || presenting the same claims as are asserted in this action.! (Perez Perez v. Warden, California 2 | City Correctional Center, 2:26-cv-01303-DAD-CSK (“Perez Perez IT’) Doc. No. 10.) The court 3 | granted that motion and dismissed the claims without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) on May 4 | 14, 2026. (Perez Perez II Doc. No. 11.) The court finds that dismissal without prejudice under 5 || these circumstances would not be proper because petitioner has requested this dismissal so that he 6 || may re-file his claims in the future. In this case, the court has already ruled on petitioner’s 7 | motion for temporary restraining and preliminary injunction, and respondents have filed 8 | responsive briefing, as well as a motion to dismiss all respondents other than petitioner’s 9 | immediate custodian. (See Doc. Nos. 6, 7, 10.) At this stage of this case, dismissal without 10 | prejudice would unnecessarily prolong litigation. Therefore, the court will decline to exercise its 11 | discretion to dismiss this action without prejudice so that petitioner may re-file his claims in the 12 | future. Cf Cramton v. Grabbagreen Franchising LLC, No. 17-cv-04663-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 13 | 5493439, at *3 (D. Ariz. Nov. 23, 2021) (noting a general rule that “a district court will grant a 14 | plaintiff's motion to dismiss where the motion is to dismiss with prejudice[]”), motion for relief 15 | from judgment granted, No. 17-cv-04663-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 12311757 (D. Ariz. Nov. 29, 16 | 2021). 17 Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED without 18 | prejudice. The petition for habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) and respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 19 | No. 6) are re-referred to Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim for further proceedings. *" Dated: _ June 10, 2026 Da A. 2, axel UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 | | Both of the petitioner’s habeas petitions allege that his detention, which began on January 27, 2026, violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 28 | Amendment. (Doc. No. 1 at □□ 27-33; Perez Perez II Doc. No. 1 at 8-9.)