Simpson v. United States of America

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's pro se motion for new proceedings ECF No. 56 and motion for recusal ECF No. 57 are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that I will not issue a certificate of appealability.Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 2/28/14. (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KENNETH SIMPSON,
Movant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11CV2058 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on movant’s pro se motion for new proceedings and
motion for recusal. Both motions are frivolous.
Movant does not believe that I should have been assigned to hear his § 2255
motion because I was assigned to his criminal action. Movant is incorrect. Title
28 U.S.C. § 2255 “clearly permits and requires the attack on a federal sentence to
be made in the sentencing court absent a showing that such court has denied relief
or that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of
the detention.” Humphries v. Ciccone, 428 F.2d 477, 478 (8th Cir. 1970); see
Farrow v. United States, 580 F.2d 1339, 1349 (9th Cir. 1978) (“motions under
[§ 2255] are properly presented to the original sentencing judge.”). Regardless,
this action is closed, and the judgment is final. As a result, both motions are
denied with prejudice.

Accordingly
A
y,
IT IS HE
T
EREBY ORDERED that m
O
D
movant’s p
pro se mo
otion for new
proceed
dings [ECF No. 56] and motion for recusa [ECF No 57] are D
F
a
n
al
o.
DENIED.
IT IS FU
T
URTHER ORDERE that I will not issue a certificate of
ED
t
e
appeala
ability.
Dated this 28th day of February 2014.
D
2
f
y,

RODNE W. SIP
EY
PPEL
UNITE STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
ED
ES

2