Sandoval v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 YSELA SANDOVAL, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00789-JLR-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WARDEN, Noting Date: September 5, 2024 Respondent.

15 The District Court has referred this action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to United States Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold.

17 Petitioner Ysela Sandoval, proceeding pro se, commenced this action in August 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See Dkt. 1. The action was transferred to this Court on June 3, 2024. See Dkt. 14. On June 5, 2024, the Clerk of Court notified Petitioner that her pleadings were deficient because she had not paid the $5.00 filing fee or applied to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), and she had failed to provide the Court with a copy of her prison trust account statement. Dkt. 16. The Clerk also informed Petitioner that she had until July 5, 2024, to correct the deficiencies. Id. 1 Petitioner failed to respond to the Clerk’s Notice by July 5, 2024. See Dkt. As a result, on July 16, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing Petitioner to show cause why her case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. 17. The Court informed Petitioner that if she fails to respond to the Court’s Order on or before August 16, 2024, the Court will recommend dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order. Id. 7 Petitioner has not responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and the time for doing so has now passed. See Dkt. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Local Rule 41(b)(2) (relating to involuntary dismissal of actions).

11 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on September 5, 2024, as noted in the caption.

19 Dated this 21st day of August, 2024.

A 22 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge