Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Uttecht, 3:16-CV-05019-RBL-JRC. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20160419e59 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 22, 2016
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION J. RICHARD CREATURA , Magistrate Judge . The District Court has referred this petition for a writ of habeas corpus to United States Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. The Court's authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. On January 8, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkts. 1, 3. On February 12, 2016 the Court ordered petitioner to show cause why
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The District Court has referred this petition for a writ of habeas corpus to United States Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. The Court's authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4.

On January 8, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkts. 1, 3. On February 12, 2016 the Court ordered petitioner to show cause why his IFP motion should not be denied, or in the alternative, that petitioner pay the filing fee. Dkt. 5. Petitioner paid the filing fee on March 17, 2016, and thus, the Court should deny his IFP motion as moot.

DISCUSSION

A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee on March 17, 2016. See Dkt. entry dated March 17, 2016. Therefore, his IFP motion is moot.

CONCLUSION

Because petitioner paid the filing fee, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny his IFP motion as moot. Dkts. 1, 3.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Petitioner shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed set this matter for consideration on April 15, 2016 as noted in the caption.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer