BLAHA v. WALMSLEY
ORDER DISMISSING without prejudice 1 Petition. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/3/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
NO. 5:16-CV-516 (MTT)
Warden SUE MICKENS,
Petitioner Kathleen Blaha, an inmate at Pulaski State Prison, filed a pro se petition
for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to challenge the execution of her
criminal sentence (ECF No. 1). By Order dated December 20, 2016, United States
Magistrate Judge Charles Weigle instructed Petitioner to submit a certified copy of her
inmate account statement (ECF No. 6). In the same Order, Judge Weigle instructed
Petitioner to supplement her petition to state whether she had exhausted her state court
remedies. Id. Petitioner was given twenty-one (21) days to respond to the Court’s Order
and specifically warned that a failure to fully and timely comply may result in the dismissal
of her habeas petition. Id. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner moved for an extension of time
(ECF No. 7), which Judge Weigle granted (ECF No. 8). Although Petitioner submitted
her inmate account statement (ECF No. 9), she failed to supplement her petition with
information about her exhaustion of state remedies. Consequently, the Court entered an
Order directing Petitioner to show cause why her petition should not be dismissed. (ECF
No. 10). The final deadline was February 20, 2017. As of today’s date, Petitioner has
neither supplemented her petition nor responded to the Court’s show cause Order.
Because of this failure, Petitioner’s petition is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489
(2000) (noting that failure to comply with a court order is grounds for dismissal in a habeas
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of March, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?