DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
EZRA THOMAS, 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
Petitioner, 
 
║ 
1:16-cv-00018 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN 
 
║ 
ISLANDS, 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
Respondent.  
║ 
________________________________________________ ║ 
 
 
TO: 
Ezra Thomas, Pro Se 
 
 
P.O. Box 2951 
 
 
Frederiksted, VI  00841 
 
 
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 
 
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner’s Response to Order to Show 
Cause (ECF No. 11). 
By the Court’s Order (ECF No. 2), entered April 21, 2016, Petitioner’s “Complaint” 
(ECF No. 1) (which the Court construed and docketed as a petition for writ of habeas 
corpus) was dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of Court was directed to provide 
Petitioner with a Section 2254 packet.  Further, Petitioner was instructed to complete and 
file the proper form.  Order (ECF No. 2) at 4-5. 
 
On May 23, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but failed to 
file a proper petition for writ of habeas corpus.  See ECF No. 5.  Petitioner had been 
cautioned that failure to file a proper petition by May 23, 2016, would result in dismissal of 
this action.  Order (ECF No. 2) at 5.  The Court then ordered Petitioner to show cause why 
Case: 1:16-cv-00018-WAL-GWC   Document #: 12   Filed: 03/20/17   Page 1 of 3
Thomas v. Government of the Virgin Islands 
1:16-cv-00018 
Order 
Page 2 
 
 
this matter should not be dismissed with prejudice for his failure to comply with the 
Court’s said Order (ECF No. 2), entered April 21, 2016.  Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 9), 
entered March 10, 2017.  Petitioner’s response to the Order to Show Cause gives no clear 
reason for Petitioner’s failure to complete and file the proper form.  At the same time, 
Petitioner requests that the Court appoint a lawyer to assist him.  Resp. (ECF No. 11) at 3. 
 
Although the document Petitioner titled “Complaint” is not a model of clarity, the 
Court thoroughly reviewed the filing and construed Petitioner’s claim as a petition for writ 
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254.  Order (ECF No. 2) at 2.  As Section 
2254 provides, “[a] district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus 
in behalf of a person in custody . . . .”  28. U.S.C. § 2254(a).  At the time of filing, Petitioner 
was in custody at the Golden Grove Correctional Facility.  Id.  However, as evidenced by the 
address provided by Petitioner in his filing (ECF No. 8) of December 21, 2016, which 
document the Clerk of Court noted was hand delivered by Petitioner, it appears that 
Petitioner no longer is being held in custody at the Golden Grove Adult Correctional Facility 
or otherwise incarcerated.  Consequently, any petition for writ of habeas corpus is moot. 
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Petition 
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) in the above-captioned matter be DISMISSED 
WITH PREJUDICE and this matter be closed. 
 
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing within 
fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice.  Failure to file objections within the specified 
Case: 1:16-cv-00018-WAL-GWC   Document #: 12   Filed: 03/20/17   Page 2 of 3
Thomas v. Government of the Virgin Islands 
1:16-cv-00018 
Order 
Page 3 
 
 
time shall bar the aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before 
the assigned District Court Judge.  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); LRCi 72.3. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ENTER: 
 
Dated: March 20, 2017 
 
 
 
/s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Case: 1:16-cv-00018-WAL-GWC   Document #: 12   Filed: 03/20/17   Page 3 of 3