Artis v. Second Judicial District Court

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
STEWART M. ARTIS,
Petitioner,
v. No. 25-cv-365 SMD/GJF
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Notice of Withdrawal of All
Documents, (Doc. 11), filed January 8, 2026. Petitioner is incarcerated and proceeding pro se.
He challenges his pretrial detention and proceedings in a state criminal case. See (Doc. 8)
(Amended Petition For a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). In his Notice,
Petitioner states he has “decided not to go forward with this Petition,” and asks the Court to not
review any of the documents filed in this case because he elects to proceed with a civil rights case
that is opened under a different case number. (Doc. 11) at 1.
Rule 41(a) provides, in relevant part, that “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a
court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or
a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Respondents have not yet filed
an answer or a motion for summary judgment and, therefore, Petitioner “has an absolute right to
dismiss without prejudice and no action is required on the part of the court.” Janssen v. Harris,
321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003). Indeed, a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is “self-executing, i.e., it is effective at the moment the notice is filed with the
Case 1:25-cv-00365-SMD-GJF Document 13 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
clerk and no judicial approval is required.” Id. (quoting Marex Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked &
Abandoned Vessel, 2 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, in light of the relief sought by
Petitioner, the Court liberally construes Petitioner’s Notice of Withdrawal of All Documents as a
notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See id. (affirming the
construction of a pro se letter requesting that a case be dismissed without prejudice as a notice of
voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)). The Court denies Petitioner’s pending
motions (Docs. 2, 3, 7, and 9) as moot
To the extent necessary, the Court will also deny a certificate of appealability (COA) under
Habeas Corpus Rule 11. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (to obtain COA, the
petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment . . .
debatable or wrong”); DeAtley v. Williams, 782 F. App’x 736, 737 (10th Cir. 2019) (declining to
issue a COA after district court dismissed habeas petition under Rule 41).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Amended Petition For a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 8) is voluntarily DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); all pending motions (Docs. 2, 3, 7, and 9) are DENED
as moot; a certificate of appealability is DENIED; and the Court will enter a separate Judgment
disposing of this civil habeas case.
________________________________
SARAH M. DAVENPORT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00365-SMD-GJF Document 13 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 2