TABATABEE v. HOLDER et al

Filing 9

ORDER: Except as stated in this Order, Petitioner's (8) Motion for Clarification is DENIED in case 5:12-cv-00217-MTT-MSH; Except as stated in this Order, Petitioner's (7) Motion for Clarification is DENIED in case 5:12-cv-00219-MTT-MSH. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 6/28/2012. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
CASEY KIA TABATABEE,
Petitioner
VS.
ERIC HOLDER, et al.,
Respondents
________________________________
CASEY KIA TABATABEE,
Petitioner
VS.
Warden DON BARROW,
Respondent
________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NO. 5:12-CV-217 (MTT)
28 U.S.C. § 2241

NO. 5:12-CV-219 (MTT)
28 U.S.C. § 2254

Before the Court is CASEY KIA TABATABEE’S “Motion for Clarification of
Order.” On June 11, 2012, Petitioner filed two habeas corpus actions in this Court, one
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and one under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Tabatabee v. Holder,
5:12-cv-217 (MTT) (section 2241); Tabatabee v. Barrow, 5:12-cv-219 (MTT) (section
2254). Petitioner filed a single set of exhibits for both petitions and incorporated
certain of the allegations of his section 2241 petition into his section 2254 petition.
Because, in the section 2254 action, Petitioner challenged his conviction in Forsyth
County, this Court transferred said action to the Northern District of Georgia. The

instant motion has been docketed in both actions. In his motion, Petitioner appears to
ask for clarification of whether the exhibits were included with both of his petitions and
whether the factual allegations from his section 2241 petition incorporated into his
section 2254 petition will be considered in the disposition of the latter.
The Court hereby informs Petitioner that his exhibits were docketed in both the
section 2241 and section 2254 actions. Petitioner should address issues regarding his
section 2254 action to the Court in the Northern District of Georgia, which now has
exclusive jurisdiction over said action. See Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs., Inc. v.
LaQuinta Motor Inns, Inc., 689 F.2d 982, 988 n.10 (11th Cir. 1982) (“When the files
in a case are physically transferred to the transferee district, the transferor court loses
all jurisdiction of the case.”). Except as stated in this Order, Petitioner’s motion is
hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of June, 2012.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-