Garey v. Bush et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Petitioner Garey's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. (2) Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. (3) Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Order in favor of respondent. Signed by Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove. (TDA)cc: Eddie Milton Garey, Jr.

Garey v. Bush et al

Doc. 6

Case 7:06-cv-00222-GFVT

Document 6

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PIKEVILLE DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-222-GFVT EDDIE MILTON GAREY, JR. VS: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RESPONDENTS PETITIONER

SUZANNE R. HASTINGS, ET AL.

Eddie Milton Garey, Jr., a/k/a Eddie Garey and Milton Garey ("Garey"), is a prisoner incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary-Big Sandy in Inez, Kentucky. He filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. By Order dated October 10, 2006, that Court transferred the case to this Court where this habeas petitioner's legal custodian was located, pursuant to Stokes v. United States Parole Commission, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). After the transfer, this Court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis. The factual and legal allegations raised by Petitioner in the instant petition are identical to those already reviewed and rejected by this Court in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 16, 2006, in Eddie Milton Garey v. Hastings et al., Civil Action 06-CV-201, Eastern District of Kentucky [Record Nos. 1, 9-10]. For the same reasons set forth therein, Garey's petition must be denied. Martin v. Perez, 319 F.3d 799, 804 (6th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Petitioner Garey's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 7:06-cv-00222-GFVT

Document 6

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 2 of 2

(2) The Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 1997). (3) Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order in favor of the respondent. This the 23rd day of October, 2006.

2