(HC) Van den Heuvel v. El Dorado Prison Holding Facility South Lake Tahoe

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN MARK VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 2:22-CV-0231-TLN-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. EL DORADO PRISON HOLDING FACILITY SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Respondent.

18 Petitioner, a parolee proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 7, 13, 14. Petitioner has not submitted an affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing that Petitioner is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security therefor. To the contrary, the affidavits submitted by Petitioner indicate that Petitioner is employed and earns $1,385.00 per month in gross wages. See e.g. ECF No. 7, pg. 1. It thus appears that Petitioner is able to pre-pay the $5.00 filing fee for this habeas action.

25 / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s motions, | Nos. 7, 13, 14, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that this action be | dismissed without prejudice to re-filing upon prepayment of fees therefor.

4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.

8 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11 | Dated: April 26, 2022 Ssvcqo_ 12 DENNIS M. COTA 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE