Otiker v. Uttecht ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ANDREW OTIKER, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-6151-RSL-DWC 11 Petitioner, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 v. Noting Date: February 12, 2021 13 WASHINGTON STATE, 14 Respondent. 15 16 The District Court has referred this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action to United States Magistrate 17 Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner Andrew Otiker, proceeding pro se, filed a Proposed Petition 18 for Writ of Habeas Corpus on November 24, 2020. Dkt. 1. The same day, the Clerk of Court sent 19 Petitioner a letter notifying Petitioner that he failed to submit an application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis or pay the filing fee. Dkt. 2. The Clerk of Court warned Petitioner that if he did not 21 respond to the letter by December 24, 2020, the action may be subject to dismissal. Id. 22 Petitioner has not responded to the Clerk of Court’s letter, has not paid the filing fee, and 23 has not filed an application to proceed IFP. As Petitioner has failed to prosecute this case, the 24 1 Court recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice. Based on the foregoing, the Court 2 also recommends denying a certificate of appealability. 3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written 5 objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those 6 objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time 7 limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on February 8 12, 2021 as noted in the caption. 9 10 Dated this 12th day of January, 2021. 11 A 12 David W. Christel 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24