Bagley v. Price et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for all further proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 4/9/2007. Signed by Judge Terry F. Moorer on 3/29/2007. (wcl, )

Bagley v. Price et al (INMATE 3)

Doc. 3

Case 2:07-cv-00264-MHT-TFM

Document 3

Filed 03/29/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _____________________________ J A M E S EDWARD BAGLEY, #182 103 Petitioner, v. C H E R Y L PRICE, WARDEN, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts .
____________________________________

* * * * * 2:07-CV-264-MHT (WO)

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is cause of action is before the court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed b y Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections. Although P e titio n e r filed this action on a form for use in filing a habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, it is clear from the allegations contained therein that this case is more appropriately file d under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Specifically, it appears from the petition and a ttac h m e n ts thereto that Petitioner seeks to challenge matters associated with his eligibility fo r correctional incentive time under the Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act [" A C IT A " ]. Ala. Code § 14-9-40, et seq. DISCUSSION In general, a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief must be filed in the d is tric t court in which a petitioner is incarcerated. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 124 S .C t. 2711, 2718 (2004); Braden v. 30 th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1 9 7 3 ); United States v. Plain, 748 F.2d 620, 621 (11 th Cir. 1984); Blau v. United States, 566

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:07-cv-00264-MHT-TFM

Document 3

Filed 03/29/2007

Page 2 of 3

F .2 d 526, 527 (5 th Cir. 1978). Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Bibb County C o rre c tio n a l Facility located in Brent, Alabama. This correctional facility is located within th e jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. "For th e convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice, a district court may tra n sfe r any civil action to any other district . . . where it might have been brought." 28 U .S .C . § 1404(a). Under the circumstances of this case as outlined herein, the court c o n c lu d e s that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the N o rth e rn District of Alabama for review and determination.1 C O N C L U SIO N Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama f o r all further proceedings. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before April 9, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party is objecting. F r iv o lo u s , conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The p a rtie s are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

A decision on Petitioner's application for in forma pauperis status is reserved for ruling by the U n i te d States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

1

2

Case 2:07-cv-00264-MHT-TFM

Document 3

Filed 03/29/2007

Page 3 of 3

F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual fin d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr o r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 29 th day of March 2007.

/s / Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3