Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00923/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00923-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Galaza
Respondent
Demond Maurice Mimms
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

DEMOND MAURICE MIMMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

GEORGE GALAZA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-0923-AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

[Doc. 6]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On August 21, 2006, the court entered an order requiring Petitioner to submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee for this action by September 25,

2006. On August 28, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On

September 20, 2006, the court entered a second order requiring Petitioner to submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. In that order, the court noted

Case 1:06-cv-00923-VRW Document 10 Filed 07/26/07 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 2

that Petitioner’s application of August 28, 2006, did not contain the required original

signature of an authorized officer of the institution. Additionally, Petitioner had not

submitted the required certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the preceding

six months. Petitioner did not respond to the court’s order. Accordingly, on November 6,

2006, the court entered a report and recommendation recommending that this action be

dismissed for lack of prosecution.

On November 21, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation.

In his objection, Petitioner complains that the court has delayed in the processing of his case,

and speculates that the real reason for the recommended dismissal of his case is his inability

to pay the filing fee. Petitioner does not address his failure to comply with the court’s order

of September 20, 2006.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has

conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the th

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. This

action has been pending for close to one year, and Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or

filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The report and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

November 6, 2006, is adopted in full;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed for lack of prosecution and

failure to comply with a court order;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00923-VRW Document 10 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 2