Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01489/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01489-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Respondent
Roderick Washington
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-1489 AWI SMS HC 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #7]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO VACATE [Doc. #8]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS [Doc. #9]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 26, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to comply with a court order.

Specifically, Petitioner failed to pay the filing fee as ordered by the undersigned on June 1, 2006. 

This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date

Case 1:05-cv-01489-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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 cd 2

of service of the order. 

Petitioner did not timely file objections. However, on September 5, 2006, Petitioner filed a

motion to vacate and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has addressed the

grounds for his motion to vacate on countless occasions in this case and in others. See, e.g.,

Washington v. Woodford, 1:05-CV-1487 OWW LJO HC; Washington v. Scribner, 1:05-CV-1536

OWW LJO HC; Washington v. Woodford, et al., 1:05-CV-1608 OWW TAG HC; Washington v.

Scribner, 1:05-CV-1547 AWI DLB HC; Washington v. Scribner, 1:05-CV-1535 OWW TAG HC;

Washington v. Woodford, 1:06-CV-0001 OWW TAG HC; Washington v. Woodford, 1:05-CV-1506

AWI DLB HC; Washington v. Woodford, 1:05-CV-1490 REC WMW HC; Washington v. Scribner,

1:05-CV-1488 AWI TAG HC; Washington v. Woodford, 1:05-CV-1477 REC DLB HC. Petitioner’s

allegations are a common refrain. He states he paid the filing fee in April of 2006, and he claims he 

has submitted several applications to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Petitioner has been 

repeatedly informed in these cases that the Court did not receive the filing fees he allegedly

forwarded. In addition, his applications to proceed in forma pauperis have all been denied because it

was determined he could afford the cost of the actions.

Petitioner maintains prison officials have conspired to obstruct his attempts to comply with

the various orders in the above cases. However, his complaints of obstruction and malfeasance by the

prison trust account office are completely unsubstantiated and unfounded, because he has failed to

provide any specifics on his attempts to comply, despite having several opportunities to do so.

Moreover, according to the records in several cases, it was Petitioner who caused obstruction by

continually refusing to accept mail from the Court. See Washington v. Woodford, 1:05-CV-1626

OWW DLB HC; Washington v. Woodford, 1:06-CV-0316 AWI SMS HC; Washington v.

Woodford, et al., 1:05-CV-1507 AWI WMW HC; Washington v. Woodford, 1:05-CV-1506 AWI

DLB HC; Washington v. Woodford, et al., 1:05-CV-1505 OWW WMW HC. Further, Petitioner’s

claims are belied by the fact he paid the filing fees in several other cases when ordered to do so. See

Washington v. Scribner, 1:05-CV-1537 REC TAG HC; Washington v. Scribner, 1:05-CV-1612

AWI WMW HC; Washington v. Alameida, 1:05-CV-1510 AWI WMW HC; Washington v.

Scribner, 1:05-CV-1509 OWW WMW HC; Washington v. Scribner, 1:05-CV-1508 AWI TAG HC;

Case 1:05-cv-01489-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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 cd 3

Washington v. Scribner, 1:05-CV-1491 AWI DLB HC; Washington v. Scribner, 1:05-CV-1486 AWI

TAG HC; Washington v. Scribner, 1:05-CV-1484 OWW WMW HC.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings

and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued July 26, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

3. Petitioner’s motion to vacate is DENIED;

4. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01489-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 3