Ward v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Objections to R&R due by 4/3/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 3/18/2009. (cb, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION T IJU A N A L. WARD, # 244936, P e titio n e r, v STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 2:09cv127-TMH (WO)

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is case is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief f ile d by Tijuana L. Ward, a state inmate, on or around February 20, 2009. In her petition, W a rd challenges a sentence imposed upon her by the Circuit Court for Dallas County, A la b a m a , a state trial court. Ward appears to seek an award of jail credit from the

a f o re m e n tio n e d state court for time spent in pretrial confinement. DISCUSSION T h is court "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice" may transfer a n application for writ of habeas corpus to "the district court for the district within which the S ta te court was held which convicted" the petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Ward attacks a se n ten c e imposed upon her by the Circuit Court for Dallas County, Alabama, and requests th a t the trial court award her jail credit for time served in pretrial confinement. Dallas

C o u n ty is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern D is tr ic t of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that transfer of this case to such other court for review and disposition is appropriate. 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 Southern District of Alabama p u rs u a n t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). It is further ORDERED that on or before April 3, 2009, the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or g e n e ra l objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that th is Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en

2

b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 18 th day of March, 2009.

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

3