ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior District Judge.

On or about October 31, 2014, Applicant Anthony T. Kinney filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, naming Rick Raemisch, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) and E. Diggins, the Denver Sheriff, as the Respondents. (ECF No. 17). At the time he filed his Application, Applicant was incarcerated at the Denver County Jail.

In his Application, Mr. Kinney asserts that he was denied the parole process that a non-violent offender should have, resulting in further incarceration. As relief, he requested that his parole start date reflect April 2012, instead of September 30th, 2013 and that he receive all the Earned Time and Good Time he would have received by serving the time between April 2012 to October 2014. (ECF No. 17, p.5).

On November 6, 2014, the Court ordered Respondents to file a preliminary response pursuant to Keck v. Hartley, 550 F.Supp.2d 1272 (D. Colo. 2008) limited to addressing whether any of Applicant's claims are moot and the affirmative defenses of timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and/or exhaustion of state court remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). (ECF No. 22).

Respondents filed a Preliminary Answer on December 4, 2014 wherein they asserted that Mr. Kinney had not exhausted his state court remedies. (ECF No. 31). On January 14, 2015, the Court directed Respondents to file a supplemental response addressing whether any of Mr. Kinney's claims were now moot and whether Mr. Kinney's claim that the Parole Board abused their discretion is subject to judicial review. (ECF No. 34). That Order was sent to Mr. Kinney at his address of record and returned to the Court as undeliverable. (ECF No. 38). On February 3, 2015, Respondents filed an Amended Answer (ECF No. 35) and an Amended Supplement (ECF No. 36) wherein they asserted that, to the extent Mr. Kinney seeks a declaration from the court that his parole start date should be April 2012, instead of September 30, 2013, that claim is not moot (although it was not exhausted in the state courts). Respondents further asserted that, to the extent that Mr. Kinney asserts that the Parole hearing in February 2012 violated his due process rights, that claim is moot given that he has been released to parole. (ECF No. 35).

A review of the "Finding an Inmate" tab on the DOC website, www.doc.state.co.us, revealed that Mr. Kinney currently is incarcerated at the Arrowhead Correctional Center. Consequently, on March 18, 2015, this Court updated its records to reflect Mr. Kinney's current address. Also on March 18, 2015, Magistrate Judge Gallagher issued an Order to Show Cause directing Applicant to show cause, in writing, within thirty (30) days, why the § 2241 Applicant should not be dismissed. That Order was sent to Mr. Kinney's Arrowhead address and has not been returned.

Magistrate Judge Gallagher warned Applicant that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause within thirty days. Because Applicant has failed to comply with the March 18, 2015 Order within the time allowed the action will be dismissed.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Applicant files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $505.00 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Application is denied and the action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.