Odom v. USA et al, No. 0:2018cv00091 - Document 6 (E.D. Ky. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER : 1) Odom's "amended" petition for a writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for administrative purposes; 2) Odom's Motion to proceed ifp is DENIED AS MOOT; 3) Odom's motion to amend petition for a writ of habeas corpus 3 is DENIED AS MOOT; 4) this action is STRICKEN from the active docket. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 9/24/18.(JLS)cc: COR, Odom via US Mail
Download PDF
Odom v. USA et al Doc. 6 Eastern District of hnl~tUJ,\~: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION at ASHLAND FILED SEP 2 4 2018 Al GARY DEWITT ODOM, Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1~S>--iLAi'oli J'(Oi3ER·1 e:. IA,, CLERK u.~ ui-:. it,:.,. . .;.· .•M. Civil No. 0: 18-91-HRW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER *** *** *** *** On August 28, 2018, Gary Odom - an inmate in state custody - filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in a separate case, Odom v. United States, No. 0: 18-CV-90-HRW (E.D. Ky. 2018), apparently to challenge the lodging of a federal detainer against him. [D. E. No. 1 therein] The Court denied that petition shortly thereafter, noting amongst other things that his claims appeared to be of a kind that ought to be asserted in his underlying criminal case. [D. E. No. 4 therein] In early September Odom filed a motion in that case to reconsider the dismissal of his petition, asserting that a typographical error in the original petition led the Court to believe that he had committed a new offense while on supervised release, which he now contends occurred only after his term of supervised release 1 Dockets.Justia.com was concluded. [D. E. No. 5] Odom also filed a motion to amend his petition to correct the error, and tendered an amended petition. [D. E. No. 5-1; 5-2] The Court denied that motion shortly thereafter. [D. E. No. 7] Unbeknownst to the Court, Odom had already sent his motion to amend his habeas corpus petition and an amended petition in a second, earlier letter. Odom also included with that letter a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a new certificate of inmate account. Because Odom did not heed the Court's earlier direction in Case Number 18-90 to include the case number with any document he filed with the Court, see D. E. No. 3 therein at pg. 1, and because he had included a new motion for pauper status, the Clerk of the Court construed Odom's proposed amended petition in his original case as a new habeas corpus petition, and docketed it accordingly in this action. [D. E. No. 1] The foregoing history makes plain that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this case [D. E. No. 1] is duplicative of Odom's motion to amend his habeas corpus petition in the prior habeas action, Case Number 18-90. The Court will therefore dismiss this action without prejudice for administrative purposes, and will not assess the five-dollar habeas filing fee or address the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 2 1. Gary Odom's "amended" petition for a writ of habeas corpus [D. E. No. 1] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for administrative purposes. 2. Odom's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D. E. No. 1-3] 1s DENIED AS MOOT. 3. Odom's motion to amend petition for a writ of habeas corpus [D. E. No. 3] is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. This action shall be STRICKEN from the active docket. This the)Cf ~~f September, 2018. @ 3 Signed By: Huey R. Wl!ho;t. ~ · United ltat11 District Judge