Edwards v. Wheeler-White et al (INMATE3)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Objections to R&R due by 6/16/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 6/3/2009. (cb, )
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 K IM B E R L Y EDWARDS, # 221004, 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. 2:09cv496-ID (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 Kimberly Edwards ("Edwards"), an Alabama inmate incarcerated at ADOC W o rk Relief in Birmingham. By her petition, Edwards appears to challenge her convictions a n d sentence for four counts of first-degree robbery, which were entered against her in 2002 b y the Circuit Court for Jefferson 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Edwards c h a lle n g e s her convictions and sentence imposed by the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, A la b a m a . Jefferson County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District C o u rt for the Northern 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.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 16, 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 t ra 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.
Edwards also asserts, in cursory fashion, that she is being improperly denied access to early release programs while in prison. In transferring the present case, this court makes no determination with respect to the merits of any of Edwards'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 Edwards has submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). However, the courts finds that this motion would also more properly be considered by the transferee court. 2
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 3 r d day of June, 2009.
/s/T erry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER U N IT E D 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?