Hensley v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 10/3/08; for reasons set forth in 35 Memorandum Opinion, Mr. Hensley's petition for habeas relief is DENIED. cc: Petitioner, pro se, John Motley, Warden, Counsel (SC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE JOHN HENSLEY V. 30TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF KENTUCKY and JOHN MOTLEY, WARDEN ORDER For the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion accompanying this Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Hensley's petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is hereby DENIED. The court may issue a certificate of appealability only if Mr. Hensley " has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, Mr. Hensley must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the court's assessment of his claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In this matter, existing Supreme Court precedent applied to Mr. Hensley's circumstances clearly establishes that Mr. Hensley's rights under the IAD were not violated and, even if they were, his claim is not appropriate for habeas relief. See Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43 (1993) and Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339 (1994). The court is thus persuaded that reasonable jurists would not find debatable or wrong the correctness of the assessments made in the accompanying memorandum opinion, and therefore declines to issue a certificate of appealability. DATE: cc:
October 3, 2008

PETITIONER Civil Action No. 3:07CV-P-00028-S

RESPONDENTS

petitioner, pro se Mr. John Motley, Warden counsel of record