Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01547/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01547-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, 1:05-CV-1547 REC DLB HC

Petitioner,

vs. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

A. K. SCRIBNER, 

(DOCUMENT #6)

Respondent.

 /

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On May 1, 2006, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the

instant action be dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to respond to the Court’s March 7, 2006,

order. On May 15, 2006, Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a

certified copy of his prison trust account statement. Because Petitioner has now responded to the

Court’s March 7, 2006, order, the Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendations. 

Examination of the documents submitted in support of Petitioner’s in forma pauperis

application reveals that Petitioner is able to afford the costs of this action. Specifically, in the last six

months, Petitioner has had an average balance of at least ($600.00) in his account. His current

balance is $342.35. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations of May 1, 2006, is VACATED;

2. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; and

3. Petitioner is ORDERED to pay the five dollar ($5.00) filing fee within thirty (30)

Case 1:05-cv-01547-AWI-DLB Document 7 Filed 05/22/06 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

days of the date of service of this order. Failure to follow this order will result in the

dismissalof the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01547-AWI-DLB Document 7 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 2