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

Filing 3

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 6/10/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 5/28/2009. (wcl, )

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 W E N D Y RAGLAND, # 187815, 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. 2:09cv457-WHA (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 WENDY RAGLAND ("Ragland"), an Alabama inmate incarcerated at ADOC W o r k Relief in Birmingham. Ragland challenges her assault convictions and resulting se n ten c e , imposed in June 2000 by the Circuit Court for Calhoun County, Alabama, a state 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). Ragland ch allen g es the convictions and sentence entered against her in June 2000 by the Circuit Court f o r Calhoun County, Alabama. Calhoun County is located within the jurisdiction of the U n ite d States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing,

th is court concludes that transfer of this case to such other court for review and disposition is appropriate.1 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 10, 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.

Although her allegations in this regard are cursory, Ragland also appears to seek placement in a community correctional program. In transferring this case, the court makes no determination with respect to the merits of any of Ragland's claims and deems such matters as more appropriately addressed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This court also notes that Ragland has submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, the courts finds that this motion would also more properly be considered by the transferee court. 2

1

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.

/s /T e r r y F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3