Hernandez Salvo v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 ALFREDO HERNANDEZ SALVO, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00441-TMC-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WARDEN, Noting Date: July 30, 2025 Respondent.

15 The District Court has referred this federal habeas action to United States Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold. Petitioner Alfredo Hernandez Salvo, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on March 10, 2025, by filing a proposed Petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1. Petitioner did not pay the $5.00 filing fee or apply to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) at that time. On March 14, 2025, the Clerk of Court notified Petitioner of his filing deficiencies and informed him that failure to pay the filing fee or submit a completed IFP Application by April 14, 2025, could result in dismissal of his action. Dkt. 2.

22 That deadline elapsed with no filing fee or IFP Application received from Petitioner.

23 Subsequently, the Court issued an Order directing Petitioner to submit a completed IFP Application or show cause why he cannot file a complete IFP Application by May 30, 2025, or pay the filing fee. Dkt. 3. The Court warned Petitioner that if he failed to accomplish one of those requirements by the stated deadline, the Court would recommend this action be dismissed for failure to properly prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order. Id. 5 On May 13, 2025, the Clerk’s letter regarding Petitioner’s filing deficiencies (Dkt. 2) and the Court’s Order to show cause (Dkt. 3) were both returned as undeliverable. See Dkt. 4. Since that time, Petitioner has failed to update his address with the Court. See Dkt.

8 Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s April 29, 2025, Order and Local Civil Rule 41(b)(2). He has not provided the Court with his current address. As Petitioner has failed to respond to the Court’s Order and prosecute this case, the Court recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

12 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 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 July 30, 2025, as noted in the caption.

19 Dated this 15th day of July, 2025.

A 22 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge