Degfu v. Bennett

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 DEREJE ASRAT DEGFU, Case No. 2:24-cv-01275-JNW-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION JASON BENNETT, 9 Noted for November 7, 2024 Respondent. 10

11 The District Court has referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge 12 Theresa L. Fricke. On August 15, 2024, petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma 13 pauperis (IFP) and a proposed habeas corpus petition nominally under 28 U.S.C. § 14 2241. Dkts. 3, 3-1. 15 After screening the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 16 cases, the Court concluded the petition was not properly filed under § 2241; the claims 17 were required to be brought via habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition on 18 its face contained claims that were unexhausted. Dkt. 4. The Court ordered petitioner to 19 show cause by October 25, 2024, why the petition should not be dismissed without 20 prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Id. at 4. The Court advised 21 petitioner if he failed to timely respond to the Order, the Court would recommend 22 dismissal of this action. Id. 23 24 1 Petitioner has failed to respond and therefore failed to comply with the Court’s 2 Order. As petitioner has failed to respond to the Court’s Order and prosecute this case, 3 the Court recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 4 The Court further recommends that petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP (Dkt. 3) be

5 DENIED as moot. Based on the foregoing, the Court also recommends a certificate of 6 appealability be DENIED. 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 8 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for 10 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can 11 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 12 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 13 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 14 directed to set the matter for consideration on November 22, 2024, as noted in the

15 caption. 16 Dated this 7th day of November, 2024. 17 18 19 A

20 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23

24 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23