Hill v. Wheeler-White et al (INMATE 2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to the USDC NDAL pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 2241(d); Objections to R&R due by 6/12/2009. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 5/29/2009. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _____________________________ TRACI ANN HILL, #256 484, Petitioner, v. CYNTHIA WHEELER-WHITE, WARDEN, et al., Respondents. _____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-411-TMH (WO)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is pending before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus filed by Petitioner on May 4, 2009.1 On February 26, 2007 Petitioner was convicted for a drug offense and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. In this petition, Petitioner challenges the amount of jail credit awarded her for that sentence by the Circuit Court for Morgan County, Alabama. DISCUSSION This court, "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice," may transfer Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus to "the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted" Petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner
Although the Clerk of this court stamped the present petition "filed" on May 6, 2009, Petitioner signed the petition May 4, 2009. 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, 1340-41 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 1993). In light of the foregoing and for purposes of this Recommendation, the court considers May 4, 2009 as the date of filing.
seeks to challenge the amount of jail credit granted 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 of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that the transfer of this case to the Northern District 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 the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before June 12, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive 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 and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report 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
In transferring the instant case, this court makes no determination regarding the merits of Petitioner's claim for relief nor whether she has exhausted available state court remedies prior to filing a federal habeas petition as required by 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)(1)(A).
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 of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done, this 29th day of May, 2009. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?