Humphreys v. Cowlitz County Clerks ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 SCOTT WESLEY HUMPHREYS, CASE NO. C22-5240JLR 11 Petitioner, ORDER v. 12 COWLITZ COUNTY CLERKS, et 13 al., 14 Respondents. 15 Before the court are Petitioner Scott Wesley Humphreys’s objections to Magistrate 16 Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s December 12, 2022 report and recommendation. (Obj. (Dkt. 17 # 15); R&R (Dkt. # 14).) Magistrate Judge Fricke recommends that the court dismiss Mr. 18 Humphreys’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for failure to specify 19 grounds for habeas relief, deny Mr. Humphreys’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 20 (“IFP”) (see IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 4) as moot, and deny a certificate of appealability. (See 21 generally R&R.) 22 1 A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and 2 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “A judge of the court 3 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 4 by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The statute makes it clear that the 5 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo 6 if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 7 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Because Mr. Humphries is proceeding pro se, this court 8 must interpret his petition and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 9 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). 10 Here, although Magistrate Judge Fricke provided Mr. Humphreys several 11 opportunities to file a habeas petition that complies with Rule 2 of the Rules Governing 12 § 2254 Cases (see 5/4/22 OSC (Dkt. # 8); 7/5/22 OSC (Dkt. # 12)), Mr. Humphreys has 13 failed, despite multiple filings, to cure the deficiencies Magistrate Judge Fricke identified 14 in her orders to show cause (see Prop. Mem. (Dkt. # 1); Prop. Mot. (Dkt. # 6); Prop. Pet. 15 (Dkt. # 9); Resp. (Dkt. # 10); Supp. (Dkt. # 11); Praecipe (Dkt. # 13)). Mr. Humphreys’s 16 objections do not address the concerns set forth in the report and recommendation. (See 17 generally Obj.) Accordingly, on de novo review, the court ADOPTS the report and 18 recommendation (Dkt. # 14); DENIES Mr. Humphreys’s petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus (Dkt. # 9) without prejudice; DENIES Mr. Humphreys’s motion to proceed IFP 20 (Dkt. # 4) as moot; and DENIES a certificate of appealability. 21 // 22 // 1 Dated this 30th day of December, 2022. 2 A 3 4 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22