Cooper v. United States of America

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that Magistrate Kaull's 7 Report and Recommendation is adopted; Plaintiff's 10 Motion Seeking Status of Case is denied as moot; and this case is dismissed without prejudice and stricken from the docket. The Clerk shall enter a separate judgment order. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 5/15/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(copy Plaintiff)(cnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BILLY D. COOPER,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12CV125
(Judge Keeley)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On August 6, 2012, the pro se plaintiff, Billy D. Cooper
(“Cooper”), filed an “Application for Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to Article I, § 9, Clause 2,” (dkt. no. 1), which
was docketed as a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. On the same date, the Clerk of Court sent Cooper a Notice
of Deficient Pleading that advised he must submit his petition on
the Court-approved form and either pay the $5.00 filing fee or
submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2).
In response, Cooper filed a document styled as a “Bill of Attainder
(Treason),” insisting, inter alia, that his claims are brought
under Article I, § 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
(“the Suspension Clause”), and any contrary construction of his
pleading is “Treason against the Constitution for the United States
of America.” (Dkt. No. 6 at 9-10).
The

Court

then

referred

this

matter

to

United

States

Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull for initial screening and a report
and recommendation in accordance with LR PL P 2. On October 5,

COOPER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1:12CV125

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
2012,

Magistrate Judge Kaull issued an Opinion and Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Cooper’s complaint be
dismissed. (Dkt. No. 7). The magistrate judge determined that
(1) inasmuch as Cooper insists his pleading is filed under the
Suspension Clause, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain
the

same;

and

(2)

Cooper’s

arguments,

in

any

event,

are

unintelligible. Id.
Cooper filed objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R on
December 11, 2012. (Dkt. No. 9). These objections are basically a
repeat of the same erroneous legal theories contained in his “Bill
of Attainder (Treason).” (Dkt. No. 6). As the magistrate judge
correctly observed, however, the Suspension Clause is a prohibition
against

suspending

the

writ

except

in

certain

limited

circumstances, not a positive grant of jurisdiction to issue the
writ. Moreover, Cooper’s legal arguments, e.g., that Congress was
without

authority

to

criminalize

his

underlying

counts

of

conviction, are patently frivolous.
Accordingly, the Court:
1.

ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (dkt. no. 7);

2.

DENIES AS MOOT the plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Status of
Case (dkt. no. 10); and

3.

ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and
STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.
2

COOPER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1:12CV125

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
It is so ORDERED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk of
the Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies
of both orders to counsel of record and to the pro se plaintiff,
certified mail, return receipt requested.
DATED: May 15, 2013.

/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3