1

Rule 5, of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, states:

c) Contents: Transcripts. * * * The respondent must attach to the answer parts of

the transcript that the respondent considers relevant. * * *

(d) Contents: Briefs on Appeal and Opinions. The respondent must also file with the

answer a copy of:

(1) any brief that the petitioner submitted in an appellate court

contesting the conviction or sentence, or contesting an adverse

judgment or order in a post-conviction proceeding;

(2) any brief that the prosecution submitted in an appellate court

relating to the conviction or sentence; and

(3) the opinions and dispositive orders of the appellate court relating

to the conviction or the sentence.

See also Burns v. Lafler, 328 F.Supp.2d 711, 717 (E.D. Mich. July 26, 2004) (habeas corpus rules

require respondents to attach the relevant portions of the transcripts of the state court proceedings).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAMAR SIMSON,

Petitioner, CASE NO. 09-CV-10882

v. JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NICK LUDWICK,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST TO FIND RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

On March 9, 2009, Petitioner Lamar Simson filed a pro se “Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. # 1.) Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition on

September 16, 2009. (Dkt. # 4.) The necessary Rule 5 materials1 were filed on September 24, 2009.

(Dkt. # 6.) Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s “Letter,” requesting that the Court “[find]

Respondent in contempt [of] court for [his] continuous refusal to fulfill [his] obligation to this

2:09-cv-10882-PDB-DAS Doc # 9 Filed 12/14/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 492
2

court’s order,” filed on November 12, 2009. (Dkt. # 8.) In his Letter, Petitioner contends that

Respondent failed to file the following Rule 5 materials with the Court: (1) Michigan Court of

Appeals Brief, (2) Supplemental Court of Appeals Brief, (3) Second Motion for Remand for Ginther

Hearing, (4) Supplemental Appellant’s Brief After Ginther Hearing, (5) Michigan Supreme Court

Brief, (6) Brief in Support to Expand the Record, (7) Michigan Court of Appeals Order for Remand,

(8) Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court, (9) Motion to Expand the Record to the

Supreme Court, and, (10) Additional Supplemental Brief After Ginther Hearing.

Having carefully reviewed the Rule 5 materials that were filed, the Court finds that the listed

documents were properly filed; they were filed as attachments along with the Michigan Court of

Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court briefing materials [ dkt. # # 8-10]. The Court therefore

concludes that the necessary Rule 5 materials have been filed in order to resolve Petitioner’s claims;

Respondent has complied with the Court’s Order. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request to find Respondent in contempt of Court is denied.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 14, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

December 14, 2009.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10882-PDB-DAS Doc # 9 Filed 12/14/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 493