Holt v. Wheeler-White et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Deborah Holt, that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). Objections to R&R due by 6/11/2009. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 5/28/2009. (dmn)

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 D E B O R A H HOLT, # 263214, P e titio n e r, v. CYNTHIA S. WHEELER-WHITE, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 2:09cv381-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 pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus re lie f filed by Deborah Holt ("Holt"), an Alabama inmate incarcerated at ADOC Work Relief in Birmingham. In her petition, Holt challenges a prison sentence for possession of burglary to o ls imposed on her in August 2007 by the Circuit Court for Morgan County, Alabama, a sta te trial court. D IS C U S S IO N 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). Holt attacks a se n ten c e imposed on her by the Circuit Court for Morgan County, Alabama. Morgan County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District o f Alabama. In light of the foregoing, this court concludes that transfer of this case to such o th e r court for review and disposition is appropriate.

C O N C L U SIO N A c c o r d in g ly, 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 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 June 11, 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 i s tr a t e 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 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 28 th day of May, 2009.

2

/s/Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3