Midkiff v. Bennett

W.D. Washington

Midkiff v. Bennett

DecidedSeptember 16, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-05550

StatusUnknown

This text of Midkiff v. Bennett (Midkiff v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Midkiff v. Bennett, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 Byron Glen Midkiff, Jr, Case No. 3:24-cv-05550-LK-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION Jason Bennett , 9 NOTED FOR OCTOBER 1, 2024 Respondent. 10

11 On July 10, 2024, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 USC 2241 12 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt 1. On August 5, 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 26, 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. In this case, on the face of 18 the petition, the claims are unexhausted and the Court should dismiss without prejudice 19 on the basis of failure to exhaust state remedies. Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 20 (9th Cir. 2001) (if habeas corpus petition contains only unexhausted claims, the federal 21 district court is required to dismiss). 22

23 1 Petitioner requested the docket sheet on August 16, 2024. Dkt. 5. He states in his request that “no notice of action has been served.” Petitioner’s motion has not been served, however, because he has not 24 been granted IFP. 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 2 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for 4 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can

5 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 6 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 7 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 8 directed to set the matter for consideration on October 1, 2024, as noted in the 9 caption. 10 11 Dated this 16th day of September, 2024.

12 A 13 Theresa L. Fricke 14 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 Byron Glen Midkiff, Jr, Case No. 3:24-cv-05550-LK-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION Jason Bennett , 9 NOTED FOR OCTOBER 1, 2024 Respondent. 10

11 On July 10, 2024, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 USC 2241 12 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt 1. On August 5, 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 26, 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. In this case, on the face of 18 the petition, the claims are unexhausted and the Court should dismiss without prejudice 19 on the basis of failure to exhaust state remedies. Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 20 (9th Cir. 2001) (if habeas corpus petition contains only unexhausted claims, the federal 21 district court is required to dismiss). 22

23 1 Petitioner requested the docket sheet on August 16, 2024. Dkt. 5. He states in his request that “no notice of action has been served.” Petitioner’s motion has not been served, however, because he has not 24 been granted IFP. 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 2 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for 4 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can

5 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 6 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 7 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 8 directed to set the matter for consideration on October 1, 2024, as noted in the 9 caption. 10 11 Dated this 16th day of September, 2024.

12 A 13 Theresa L. Fricke 14 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Midkiff v. Bennett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midkiff-v-bennett-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack