THOMAS v. CHAPMAN

THOMAS RUSSELL, District Judge

Petitioner Anton L. Thomas filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (DN 1) and a supplement thereto (DN 6). By Order entered November 16, 2007 (DN 7), the Court ordered Petitioner, within 30 days, (1) to state whether he has exhausted each claim that he raises and describe the steps that he took to fully exhaust each claim, including providing the dates of filing and dates of disposition in each court; and (2) to demonstrate how the alleged violation of state law constitutes a cognizable § 2254 claim. Petitioner failed to respond. Despite this failure, the Court, by Order entered April 28, 2008 (DN 9), provided Petitioner with another opportunity to demonstrate exhaustion and a cognizable § 2254 claim. The Court warned Petitioner that his failure to comply with any part of the Order within 20 days would result in dismissal of the habeas petition. Twenty days have passed, and a review of the record reveals that Petitioner has again failed to respond to the Court's Order. Consequently, by separate Order, the Court will dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.