Fuller v. Bennett

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JESSE THOMAS FULLER, Case No. 2:24-cv-00983-TL-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION JASON BENNETT, 9 NOTED FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 Respondent. 10

11 On July 2, 2024, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 USC 2241 12 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt 1. On July 30, 2024, the 13 Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why their petition should not be dismissed for 14 failure to exhaust. Dkt. 4. Petitioner’s deadline for responding was August 15, 2024. Id. 15 Petitioner has not responded to the Court’s order to show cause to date1. 16 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY Petitioner’s IFP 17 application (Dkt. 1) and dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 19 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for 21 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can 22 23 1 Petitioner requested his “records” in the instant matter and a motion requesting discovery on July 31. 24 Dkt. 4. Petitioner’s motion has not been served, however, because he has not been granted IFP. 1 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 2 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 3 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 4 directed to set the matter for consideration on September 9, 2024, as noted in the

5 caption. 6 7 Dated this 23rd day of August, 2024. 8 9 A 10 Theresa L. Fricke 11 United States Magistrate Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24