Hall v. Wheeler-White et al (INMATE1)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge 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 6/4/2009. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/22/09. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CHRISTY TRAEGER HALL, #255770, Petitioner, v. CYNTHIA WHEELER-WHITE, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-389-TMH [WO]

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case is pending before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Christy Traeger Hall ["Hall"], a state inmate, on April 27, 2009.1 In this petition, Hall challenges the amount of credit awarded to her by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama on sentences imposed for convictions of third degree burglary and second degree possession of a forged instrument. DISCUSSION This court "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice" may transfer an application for writ of habeas corpus to "the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted" the petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Hall

Although the Clerk of this court stamped the present petition "filed" on April 29, 2009, Hall certified she placed the petition in the prison mailing system on April 27, 2009. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Court Doc. No. 1 at 15. The law is well settled that a pro se inmate's petition is deemed filed the date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-272 (1988); Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 134041 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 1993). "Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records, [this court] must assume that [the instant petition] was delivered to prison authorities the day" Hall certified she undertook such action. Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). In light of the foregoing, the court considers April 27, 2009 as the date of filing.

1

contends the amount of credit granted to her by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama on sentences imposed in November of 2007 is incorrect. Specifically, Hall requests that such state court be required to award her additional credit towards her sentences "for the time [she] was out on bond before ... sentenc[ing]...." Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Court Doc. No. 1 at 5. Moreover, Hall seeks an additional "39 days of jail credit" for time served in the Jefferson County Jail on the referenced charges and credit "for the time [she] was [confined] on house arrest...." Id. at 7. Jefferson County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District 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.2 CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge 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). It is further ORDERED that on or before June 4, 2009 the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

In transferring the instant case, this court makes no determination regarding the merits of the petitioner's claims for relief nor whether the petitioner has exhausted available state court remedies prior to filing a federal habeas petition as required by 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)(1)(A).

2

2

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings in the Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981. Done this 22nd day of May, 2009.

/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3