Nielsen v. Miller-Stout

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re denial of 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Kory Nielsen.Noting Date 5/25/2007. by Judge J. Kelley Arnold. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(CMG, )

Nielsen v. Miller-Stout

Doc. 3

Case 3:07-cv-05192-FDB

Document 3

Filed 04/30/2007

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 This habeas corpus action, filed pursuant to 28 U. S.C. 2254, has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR 4. Petitioner is represented by counsel (Dkt. # 1). The application shows petitioner to be employed in Correctional Industries. His attached prison account shows him to average approximately $150 dollars income per month (Dkt. # 1). It appears petitioner can afford the $5 Dollar filing fee for a Habeas Petition. The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon completion of a proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Page - 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA KORY NIELSEN, Petitioner, v. MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT, Respondent. Case No. C07-5192FDB REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS NOTED FOR: May 25, 2007

Case 3:07-cv-05192-FDB

Document 3

Filed 04/30/2007

Page 2 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

F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Plaintiff has not shown that is unable to pay the full filing fee to proceed with his petition. Accordingly the court recommends the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED. A proposed order accompanies this report and recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) 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 appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on May 25, 2007, as noted in the caption. DATED this 30 day of April, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Page - 2