Todd v. Wheeler-White et al (INMATE3)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Lakeisha Ray Todd, 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 5/20/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr. on 5/7/2009. (dmn)

Download PDF
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 L A K E IS H A RAY TODD, # 250479 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. 2:09cv412-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 relief filed by Lakeisha Ray Todd ("Todd"), a state inmate incarcerated at ADOC Work R e lie f in Birmingham, Alabama. In her petition, Todd challenges a prison sentence imposed o n her in November 2006 by the Circuit Court for Mobile County, Alabama, a state trial c o u rt. Todd asks the trial court to award her credit against her sentence for the time she spent f re e on bond prior to sentencing. D IS C U S S IO N T h is Court, "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice," may tra n sf e r an application for writ of habeas corpus to "the district court for the district within w h ic h the State court was held which convicted" the petitioner. 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). Todd a tta c k s a sentence imposed on her by the Circuit Court for Mobile County, Alabama, and re q u e sts that the Court award her credit against her sentence for time she spent on bond prior to sentencing. Mobile County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District C o u rt for the Southern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, this Court concludes th a t transfer of this case to such other 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 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 May 20, 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 7th day of May, 2009. /s /W a lla c e Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 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?