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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?