Simpson v. Jones et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: IT IS ORDERED (1) Magistrate Judge's 22 Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED; (2) 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) 11 Motion for Writ Pre-Exempting Comm . of Ky. Woodford Co. Indictment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (4) 15 Motion to Supplement Additional Pleadings & Motion of Pre-Exemption of Woodford Co. Indictment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as described in Report & Recommendation; (5) Court WILL NOT ISSUE certificate of appealability; (6) matter is STRICKEN from Court's docket. Signed by Judge Jennifer B. Coffman on 09/07/2012.(DAK)cc: COR,Pro Se Pla(via US Mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-422-JBC
CHARLES L. SIMPSON,
V.

PLAINTIFF,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAILER J. JONES, et al.,

DEFENDANTS.
**********

Pending before the court is Charles Simpson’s pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus (R.1), motion for writ “pre-exempting” a Commonwealth of
Kentucky Woodford County indictment (R.11), and “Supplemental to Additional
Pleadings & Motion of Pre-exemption of Woodford Co. Indictment” (R.15).1 Having
received no objection from Simpson, the court accepts the conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R.22). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R.22) is ADOPTED
as the opinion of the court.
(2)The petition for writ of habeas corpus (R. 1) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE;
(3) The motion for writ “pre-exempting” a Woodford County indictment
(R.11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
Because Simpson is proceeding pro se, the court applies a less stringent standard
than it would otherwise apply in reviewing the present petition. See Cruz v. Beto,
405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Malone v. Colyer,
710 F.2d 258, 260 (6th Cir. 1983).
1

(4) The “Supplemental to Additional Pleadings & Motion of Pre-exemption of
Woodford Co. Indictment” (R.15) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as
described in the Report and Recommendation;
(5) This court WILL NOT ISSUE a certificate of appealability, pursuant to 28
U.S.C § 2253(c), because no reasonable jurist would find the district court’s
assessment of the petitioner’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong; and
(6) This matter is STRICKEN from the court’s active docket.

Signed on September 7, 2012