Williams v. Wheeler-White et al (INMATE2)

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Shantell Williams; it is the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that this case be transferred to the USDC for the SDAL pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 2241(d); Objections to R&R due by 7/1/2009. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/18/09. (vma, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _____________________________ S H A N T E L L WILLIAMS, #235 505 P e t i t io n e r , v. C Y N T H IA WHEELER-WHITE, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . _____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-549-ID (W O )

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is matter is pending before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas c o rp u s relief filed by Petitioner on June 9, 2009.1 In this petition, Petitioner challenges her c o n v ic tio n and sentence for first degree robbery entered against her by the Circuit Court for C la rk e County, Alabama, on April 13, 2004. On June 1, 2004 the trial court sentenced P e titio n e r to a 25-year term of imprisonment. DISCUSSION T h is court, "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice," may transfer P e titio n e r's application for writ of habeas corpus to "the district court for the district within

Although the Clerk of this court stamped the present petition "filed" on June 11, 2009, Petitioner certified the petition for mailing on June 9, 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 June 9, 2009 as the date of filing.

1

w h ic h the State court was held which convicted" Petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner s e e k s to challenge a conviction and sentence entered against her by the Circuit Court for C la rk e County, Alabama. Clarke County is located within the jurisdiction of the United S ta te s District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the c o u rt concludes that the transfer of this case to such other court for review and disposition is appropriate.2 C O N C L U SIO N Accordingly, 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 rsua n t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before July 1, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v is e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

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

2

2

M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain erro r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981 ) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 18 th day of June 2009.

/s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3