Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01536/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01536-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-1536 REC LJO HC 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 22, 2005, the undersigned issued an order directing Petitioner to file a

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, or in the alternative, pay the five dollar ($5.00)

filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty days passed, and

Petitioner did not respond to the court order. Therefore, on February 15, 2006, the undersigned

issued a Findings and Recommendation that recommended the petition be dismissed for failure to

comply. Petitioner filed objections on February 22, 2006. 

In his objections, Petitioner contends he has attempted to comply with the court order by

submitting some “30 to 40 in forma pauperis applications” to prison officials. But, Petitioner claims,

prison officials have “obstructed and impeded” all of his attempts by “thwarting his legal mail to and

from the courts.” Petitioner does not support this broad claim with any specifics. In addition, the

Case 1:05-cv-01536-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

claim is difficult to believe considering Petitioner managed to file objections immediately after the

Findings and Recommendation issued in this case. Petitioner has also filed numerous motions and

declarations in other ongoing cases. See, e.g., Washington v. Woodford, Case No. 1:05-CV-1487

OWW LJO HC. Moreover, Petitioner has refused mail from the Court in other cases. See

Washington v. Woodford, Case No. 1:05-CV-1506 REC DLB HC; Washington v. Woodford, Case

No. 1:05-CV-1505 OWW WMW HC.. 

The Court will grant Petitioner an extension of time to comply with the court order and file a

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, or in the alternative, pay the filing fee. If

Petitioner’s attempts to comply are met with resistance by prison officials, Petitioner is directed to

notify the Court with specifics. The Court will not consider his claim of mail tampering without at

least a modicum of explanation. For instance, when did Petitioner attempt to comply, how did he

attempt to comply, with whom did he submit his requests, in what ways were his requests thwarted

or impeded, how has his mail been tampered with, why has he been able to file various pleadings

with the court yet fail to submit the filing fee or in forma pauperis application, and why has he

refused mail in certain instances? Petitioner is advised that should he fail to comply, the Court will

submit the Findings and Recommendation to the assigned district judge for dismissal of the action.

Accordingly, Petitioner is GRANTED an extension of time of thirty (30) days to file a

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01536-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 2