Simpson v. Jones et al, No. 5:2011cv00422 - Document 23 (E.D. Ky. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: IT IS ORDERED (1) Magistrate Judge's 22 Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED; (2) 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) 11 Motion for Writ Pre-Exempting Comm . of Ky. Woodford Co. Indictment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (4) 15 Motion to Supplement Additional Pleadings & Motion of Pre-Exemption of Woodford Co. Indictment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as described in Report & Recommendation; (5) Court WILL NOT ISSUE certificate of appealability; (6) matter is STRICKEN from Court's docket. Signed by Judge Jennifer B. Coffman on 09/07/2012.(DAK)cc: COR,Pro Se Pla(via US Mail)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-422-JBC CHARLES L. SIMPSON, V. PLAINTIFF, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAILER J. JONES, et al., DEFENDANTS. ********** Pending before the court is Charles Simpson s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus (R.1), motion for writ pre-exempting a Commonwealth of Kentucky Woodford County indictment (R.11), and Supplemental to Additional Pleadings & Motion of Pre-exemption of Woodford Co. Indictment (R.15).1 Having received no objection from Simpson, the court accepts the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation (R.22). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) The Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation (R.22) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the court. (2)The petition for writ of habeas corpus (R. 1) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) The motion for writ pre-exempting a Woodford County indictment (R.11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Because Simpson is proceeding pro se, the court applies a less stringent standard than it would otherwise apply in reviewing the present petition. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Malone v. Colyer, 710 F.2d 258, 260 (6th Cir. 1983). 1 (4) The Supplemental to Additional Pleadings & Motion of Pre-exemption of Woodford Co. Indictment (R.15) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as described in the Report and Recommendation; (5) This court WILL NOT ISSUE a certificate of appealability, pursuant to 28 U.S.C ยง 2253(c), because no reasonable jurist would find the district court s assessment of the petitioner s constitutional claims debatable or wrong; and (6) This matter is STRICKEN from the court s active docket. Signed on September 7, 2012
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
