Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Edwin Patzan Cuc, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 in the Eastern District of California on August 31, 2026. The order does not describe the claims in the petition. The record also reflects a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2), a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3), and a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 4). The court had earlier issued an order, Doc. No. 6, prohibiting the respondent, the warden of Golden State Annex, from transferring petitioner out of the district or removing him from the United States. Respondent later filed a response to the petition (Doc. No. 8).
After that response, petitioner filed a notice of voluntary dismissal citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) (Doc. No. 10). The court observed that Rule 41(a)(1) applies only if the respondent has not filed a response, and respondent had done so. The order refers once to Rule 42(a)(2), but the surrounding text and its later citations show it meant Rule 41(a)(2), under which an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms the court considers proper. The court therefore construed the filing as a Rule 41(a)(2) request.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and granted the request for voluntary dismissal. It dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice, which means the dismissal is not an adjudication of the merits, and the order states no bar on a new petition. The court relied on the rule that, unless the order says otherwise, a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal is without prejudice, and on authority that such motions should be liberally granted when they cause no legal prejudice to the respondent. It concluded that dismissal was proper and that respondent would not be prejudiced.
Because the case was dismissed, the court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and the motion for appointment of counsel as moot. It dissolved its earlier order, Doc. No. 6, so the restriction on transferring petitioner out of the Eastern District of California or removing him from the United States no longer applies. The Clerk was directed to close the case. The order does not decide whether any detention was lawful. Its caption says it denies the writ of habeas corpus, but the operative paragraphs dismiss the petition at petitioner's request rather than ruling on its merits.
Key Takeaways
- A notice of dismissal citing Rule 41(a)(1) was treated as a Rule 41(a)(2) request because the respondent had already filed a response, so court approval was required.
- The court applied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to a 2241 habeas case, citing authority that they apply to the extent they do not conflict with the habeas rules.
- Voluntary dismissal was granted without prejudice after the court found no legal prejudice to the respondent, and the order states no limit on a later filing.
- The pending TRO and counsel motions were denied as moot, and the earlier order barring transfer or removal was dissolved when the case closed.
- The caption's reference to denying the writ should not be read as a merits ruling, because the operative paragraphs dismiss the petition at petitioner's request.
Why It Matters
This is a short procedural order in a case that ended before any merits ruling. Its main value is as an example of how an Eastern District of California judge handles a 2241 petitioner's effort to withdraw after the government has responded: recharacterize the request under Rule 41(a)(2), apply the liberal standard, and dismiss without prejudice.
Readers should note what remains open. Nothing is pending in this case, and the court made no findings on the lawfulness of any detention or on the merits of the TRO request. The protective order ended with the case, so any renewed challenge would need a new filing and a fresh request for relief. As an unreported district court order, it carries limited precedential weight.