MICHELLE L. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHELLE L. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner is a Washington prisoner who is currently confined at the Coyote Creek Corrections Center in Connell, Washington. On November 3, 2022, Petitioner submitted to the Court for filing a series of documents indicating an apparent intent to challenge the State of Washington's assault statute, RCW 9A.36, which he believes violates the Washington State Constitution. (See dkt. ## 1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3.) Specifically, Petitioner asks that the Clerk of this Court certify a question to the Washington Supreme Court, under Washington's Federal Court Local Law Certificate Procedure Act, regarding the constitutionality of the assault statute. Petitioner's initial submission included at “Notice,” a “Commercial Affidavit,” an “Affidavit in Support” of the “Notice,” and an “Affidavit of Letter of Credit.” (Id.)
On November 4, 2022, the Clerk's Office sent Petitioner a letter advising him that his submission was deficient because it did not include the requisite filing fee and because he had not submitted a proper pleading. (Dkt. # 3.) The letter explained that the Court had construed Petitioner's submission as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and that it was providing him with a copy of the Court's standard form for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which he should complete and return. (See id.) The Clerk also provided Petitioner with a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis. (See id.) Petitioner was advised that his failure to correct the noted deficiencies by December 5, 2022, could result in dismissal of this action.
Petitioner was also advised that as a Washington DOC prisoner he was subject to the mandatory prisoner e-filing program and should file documents electronically. (See dkt. # 3.) Petitioner has consistently refused to comply with this requirement. (Id.)
On November 21, 2022, the Court received from Petitioner, via regular mail, a document entitled “Notice and Demand Refuse for Cause Without Dishonor UCC 3-501.” (Dkt. # 4.) Petitioner stated therein that, among other things, the forms sent to him were improper and were being returned. (See id. at 1.) Included in the document was a demand by Petitioner that the Clerk of this Court submit the “federal question” to the Washington Supreme Court “as directed in the initial notice filed,” and an assertion that the “Letter of Credit” submitted with his original materials would “cover all fees and cost for services.” (Id. at 2-3.)
On December 1, 2022, the Court received from Petitioner, again via regular mail, a document which he identified as a “Complaint” being offered in support of his original notice to the Clerk of Court. (Dkt. # 5.) Petitioner reiterated therein the reasons he believes the Clerk should certify to the Washington Supreme Court a question regarding the constitutionality of Washington's assault statute. (See id.) On December 16, 2022, the Court received from Petitioner, via regular mail, a document entitled “Affidavit of Notice of Default” in which he complains about the manner in which the Clerk has responded to his submissions and claims the Clerk is therefore “in Default.” (Dkt. # 6.) Petitioner also asserts therein that he “is not a party to any valid contract or compact” with the Clerk which requires him to pay money to the Clerk. (See id. at 2.) This appears to be a reference to the advisement contained in the Clerk's November 4, 2022, letter that Petitioner must comply with the filing fee requirement in order for this action to proceed.
Petitioner's suggestion that the “Affidavit of Letter of Credit” he submitted with his original materials is sufficient to satisfy the filing fee requirement is simply incorrect. Petitioner was properly advised by the Clerk that there are two ways in which the filing fee requirement may be satisfied: (1) by paying the $5 filing fee; or (2) by submitting an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (See dkt. # 3.) Petitioner steadfastly refuses to do either. Because this action may not proceed until the filing fee requirement is satisfied, and because Petitioner refuses to take the steps necessary to satisfy the requirement, this Court recommends that the instant action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. A proposed Order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.
Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge's motions calendar for the third Friday after they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for consideration by the District Judge on January 20, 2023.