IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 9, 2010
DAVID LEE WHITE, PETITIONER,
K. DICKINSON, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, has moved that his petition be withdrawn. Respondents have already filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the petition is successive and untimely. See docket no. 12. Petitioner responded to the motion to dismiss by filing a motion to amend his petition. See Docket No. 14. Although it is petitioner's right to withdraw his petition, he gives no reason for it in his motion. It is also not clear whether he means to withdraw his proposed amended petition or withdraw the original petition that respondent attacks in the motion to dismiss.
The court will order petitioner to clarify whether he intends to withdraw the original petition or his proposed amended petition. Petitioner is informed that a motion to withdraw the original motion will be construed by the court as a motion for voluntary dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner has fourteen days from the entry of this order in which to clarify whether, by moving the court to allow withdrawal of his petition (Docket No. 18), he intends to withdraw the original petition or his proposed amended petition.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.