Roberson v. Verge

W.D. Washington

Roberson v. Verge

DecidedOctober 31, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-01130

StatusUnknown

This text of Roberson v. Verge (Roberson v. Verge) 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

Roberson v. Verge, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 NEIL JAMES ROBERSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-01130-JCC-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION VERGE, 9 Noted for: November 15, 2024 Respondent. 10

11 This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s failure to respond to the Court’s 12 order to show cause (“Order”). Dkt. 8. Petitioner is proceeding pro se and in forma 13 pauperis in this matter, which has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 14 Mathews, Sec’y of H.E.W. v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 15 Local Rule MJR 4(a). 16 On July 25, 2024, petitioner filed a proposed habeas corpus petition pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1. On August 6, 2024 he filed a motion for leave to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 4. Given the identified deficiencies in the proposed petition, 19 namely that exhaustion of state remedies had not been shown, the Court did not grant 20 petitioner’s IFP application. Dkt. 8; See Dkt. 4-14 at 1-8. Petitioner was given until 21 October 18, 2024 to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed. Id. 22 Petitioner has not filed a response to the Order. Therefore, the Court 23 recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 24 1 276 (1971) (if a petition for habeas corpus contains claims that are unexhausted, it is 2 not cognizable in federal court); Cf. Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 920 n. 26, 921 n.27 3 (9th Cir. 2004) (unexhausted claim may be dismissed if the state courts procedurally 4 barred the claim).

5 The parties have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and 6 Recommendation to file written objections thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 7 P. 72(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of 8 those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 9 Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is directed set 10 this matter for consideration on November 15, 2024, as noted in the caption. 11 12 13 Dated this 31st day of October, 2024. 14 15 16 A

Theresa L. Fricke 17 United States Magistrate Judge

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 NEIL JAMES ROBERSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-01130-JCC-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION VERGE, 9 Noted for: November 15, 2024 Respondent. 10

11 This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s failure to respond to the Court’s 12 order to show cause (“Order”). Dkt. 8. Petitioner is proceeding pro se and in forma 13 pauperis in this matter, which has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 14 Mathews, Sec’y of H.E.W. v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 15 Local Rule MJR 4(a). 16 On July 25, 2024, petitioner filed a proposed habeas corpus petition pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1. On August 6, 2024 he filed a motion for leave to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 4. Given the identified deficiencies in the proposed petition, 19 namely that exhaustion of state remedies had not been shown, the Court did not grant 20 petitioner’s IFP application. Dkt. 8; See Dkt. 4-14 at 1-8. Petitioner was given until 21 October 18, 2024 to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed. Id. 22 Petitioner has not filed a response to the Order. Therefore, the Court 23 recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 24 1 276 (1971) (if a petition for habeas corpus contains claims that are unexhausted, it is 2 not cognizable in federal court); Cf. Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 920 n. 26, 921 n.27 3 (9th Cir. 2004) (unexhausted claim may be dismissed if the state courts procedurally 4 barred the claim).

5 The parties have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and 6 Recommendation to file written objections thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 7 P. 72(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of 8 those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 9 Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is directed set 10 this matter for consideration on November 15, 2024, as noted in the caption. 11 12 13 Dated this 31st day of October, 2024. 14 15 16 A

Theresa L. Fricke 17 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22

23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roberson v. Verge, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-verge-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack