Hill v. Mullin et al

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 2 Financial Affidavit, filed by Jeremiah Ramon Hill. IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court (1) deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (2) order payment of the filing fee within 20 days, and (3) dismiss the action without prejudice if Mr. Hill fails to timely pay the filing fee. Objections to R&R due by 10/5/2009. This R&R terminates the referral. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert Bacharach on 9/14/09. (lb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JEREMIAH RAMON HILL, Petitioner, v. MIKE MULLIN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. CIV-09-1003-F

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Mr. Jeremiah Hill has filed a petition for habeas relief. Rather than pay the filing fee, Mr. Hill moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The motion indicates that Mr. Hill has $141.00 in his savings account and the filing fee is only $5.00.1 Because Mr. Hill has adequate funds for the filing fee,2 the undersigned recommends that the Court: (1) deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (2) order payment of the filing fee within twenty days,3 and (3) dismiss the action without prejudice if Mr. Hill fails to timely pay the filing fee or show good cause for the failure to do so. See W.D. LCvR 3.3(e). The Petitioner is advised of his right to object to this report and recommendation by October 5, 2009. See W.D. Okla. Local Civil Rule 72.1. If the Petitioner does object, he
1

See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (2000).

Oklahoma law governing the statutory savings account expressly allows inmates to withdraw funds from the account to pay fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1911, et seq. Okla. Stat. tit. 57 § 549(A)(5); see also Williams v. Austin, 890 P.2d 416, 418 (Okla. Ct. App. 1994) ("A prisoner's savings held by the Department of Corrections may be used to pay fees or costs in filing a civil action." (citations omitted)).
3

2

See W.D. Okla. LCvR 3.3(e).

must file a written objection with the Court Clerk for the United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma. The Petitioner is further advised that if he does not timely object, he would waive his right to appellate review over a denial of pauper status in the district court. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This report and recommendation terminates the referral. Entered this 14th day of September, 2009.

-2-