(HC) Tejeda v. California Highway Patrol

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PEDRO JOSE TEJEDA, No. 2:22-cv-1213 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 naming the California Highway Patrol as respondent. Petitioner did not, however, file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 20 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a).

21 By order dated September 2, 2022, petitioner was granted thirty days to either submit an affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis or to submit the appropriate filing fee. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner was cautioned that failure to comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.) Petitioner has not submitted an affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis, has not paid the filing fee, and has not otherwise responded to the court’s order.

27 A party instituting an application for writ of habeas corpus in the district court must pay a filing fee of $5. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a petitioner’s failure to | prepay the entire fee if the petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 | U.S.C. § 1915(a). Despite being provided with additional time in which to do so, petitioner has | neither paid the $5 filing fee nor submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, this | action should be dismissed for failure to pay the required filing fee.

5 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall assign a | district judge to this case.

7 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without | prejudice for petitioner’s failure to pay the filing fee.

9 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 thirty days after | being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District | Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16 | Dated: November 7, 2022 teje1213.156ifp BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE