Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01626/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01626-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, 1:05-CV-1626 OWW DLB HC 

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER TO SUBMIT

APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

J. WOODFORD, IN FORMA PAUPERIS

OR FILING FEE

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an application for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was originally filed on December 7, 2005, in the

United States District Court, Western Division of the Central District of California. It was ordered

transferred to the Fresno Division on December 15, 2005, and received in this Court on December 23,

2005. Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee, or submitted an application to proceed in forma

pauperis on the appropriate form pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, on February 16, 2006,

Petitioner filed a notice regarding his application to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and several

other pending cases including, but not limited to, Washington v. Woodford, Case No. 1:05-1477 REC

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

No. 1:05-1536 REC LJO HC. 

In his notice, Petitioner contends he has attempted to submit 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 claim is difficult to believe considering Petitioner

managed to file a notice less than thirty days after the order was issued in this case. Petitioner has also

Case 1:05-cv-01626-OWW -DLB Document 4 Filed 03/06/06 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

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

another case. See Washington v. Woodford, Case No. 1:05-CV-1505 OWW WMW HC. If Petitioner’s

attempts to comply with this order 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 issue Findings and

Recommendations to the assigned district judge for dismissal of the action. Accordingly, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send to petitioner the form for application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

2. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, petitioner shall submit a

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, or in the alternative, pay the $5.00 filing fee for this

action. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01626-OWW -DLB Document 4 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2