Guzman-Osorio v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 JILBERTO GUZMAN-OSORIO, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01203-JHC-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS Noting Date: October 11, 2024 13 ENFORCEMENT FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Respondent.

The District Court has referred this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action to United States Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold. Petitioner Jilberto Guzman-Osorio, proceeding pro se, filed a proposed Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 5, 2024. Dkt. 1.

Petitioner did not pay the filing fee or submit an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkt. 1. On August 12, 2024, the Clerk of Court sent Petitioner a letter notifying Petitioner that he had failed to meet the filing fee requirement and had not submitted a prison trust account statement. Dkt. 3. The Clerk of Court instructed Petitioner to submit the $5.00 filing fee or file an IFP Application. Id. The Clerk of Court also enclosed an IFP Application form for Petitioner’s convenience. Id. Finally, the Clerk of Court warned Petitioner that if he did not respond to the letter by September 11, 2024, the action may be subject to dismissal. Id. 3 Petitioner has not responded to the Clerk of Court’s letter, has not paid the filing fee or filed an IFP Application, and has not submitted a prison trust account statement. As Petitioner has failed to prosecute this case, the Court recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. Further, as Petitioner has not prosecuted this case, the Court finds an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

8 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 October 11, 2024, as noted in the caption.

16 Dated this 27th day of September, 2024.

A 19 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge