Lame v. Henderson Police Department Corrections Captain
Lame v. Henderson Police Department Corrections Captain
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Serigne Khabane Lame, Case No. 2:25-cv-1001-CDS-DJA
5 Petitioner Order Vacating Hearing
6 v.
7 Corrections Captain, Corrections Division, City of Henderson Police 8 Department, Michael Bernackle, Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs 9 Enforcement, et al.,
10 Respondents 11 12 In this habeas proceeding under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner-plaintiff Serigne Khabane 13 Lame filed, on June 6, 2025, a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 41(a)(1)(A)(i), indicating that he intends to voluntarily leave the country. ECF No. 4. On June 8, 15 2025, he filed an amended notice further indicating that (1) the parties resolved this matter after 16 I entered an order granting temporary relief and setting a briefing schedule and hearing, (2) the 17 parties will not be filling further responses addressing the merits of this matter, and (3) the 18 hearing scheduled for Monday, June 9, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. is also no longer necessary and should 19 be vacated. ECF No. 5. 20 Rule 41(a) permits a petitioner to dismiss an action voluntarily, without court order, by 21 filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the opposing party serves either an answer or a 22 motion for summary judgment. See Howard v. On Habeas Corpus,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36285(E.D. 23 Cal. Mar. 15, 2013) (granting habeas petitioner’s request for voluntary dismissal under Rule 24 41(a)). The respondents have not filed any answer or motion for summary judgment in this 25 action. Therefore, under Rule 41(a)(1), this action is deemed dismissed by operation of law, 26 without any court order. See Commercial Space Management Co. v. Boeing Co.,
193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999) (“it is beyond debate that a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant 3]| can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it”). The dismissal without prejudice. Therefore, it is ordered that the Ju ep hearing, is vacated. 5 Dated: June 9, 2025 /, / ffs hbesiag 3 ‘yited States District Judge 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Reference
- Status
- Unknown