Opinion
3:23-cv-05599-BHS-GJL
12-07-2023
ZACHARY I. POND, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GRADY J. LEUPOLD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold. On July 5, 2023, Petitioner Zachary Irwin Pond initiated this case. Dkt. 1. As Petitioner has not kept the Court advised of his current address or responded to the Court's Order, the Court recommends dismissing this action without prejudice.
On July 6, 2023, the Clerk of Court mailed Petitioner a Notice of Filing Deficiency informing Petitioner that he had submitted the incorrect Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) form and had not provided the Court with a prison trust account statement. See Dkt. 2. That mailing was returned to the Court as undeliverable on July 17, 2023. See Dkt. 4. On September 25, 2023, the Court issued an Order directing Petitioner to respond to the Notice of Filing Deficiency. Dkt. 5. In that Order, the Court also warned Petitioner that if he failed to notify the Court of his current mailing address by October 23, 2023, the Court would recommend dismissal of this action without prejudice. Id. The Court's Order was returned as undeliverable on October 6, 2023. See Dkt. 6. Petitioner has not responded to the Court's September 25, 2023, Order and has not updated his address with the Court.
Petitioner has not kept the Court advised of his current mailing address. He has also failed to respond to the Order directing him to respond to the Notice of Filing Deficiency. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Local Rule 41(b)(2) (relating to involuntary dismissal of actions). Based on the foregoing, the Court also recommends a certificate of appealability be denied.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on December 22, 2023, as noted in the caption.