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

Filing 3

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 2241(d). Objections to R&R due by 7/6/2009. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 6/22/09. (sl, )

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 C H A R L E N E HICKS, # 263173, 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. 2:09cv570-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 relief filed by Charlene Hicks ("Hicks"), an inmate incarcerated at the ADOC Work R elea se/C o m m u n ity Work Center in Birmingham. By her petition, Hicks challenges matters a s s o c i a te d with her sentence for distribution of a controlled substance, which was entered a g a in s t her in December 2008 by the Circuit Court for Baldwin County, an Alabama trial c o u rt. 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). Hicks challenges m a tters related to a sentence imposed against her in 2008 by the Circuit Court for Baldwin C o u n ty. Baldwin County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court

f o r the Southern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, this court concludes that tra n sf e r 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 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 July 6, 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

This court notes that Hicks has submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) However, the court finds that this motion would more properly be considered by the transferee court. 2

1

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 22 n d day of June, 2009.

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

3