Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00399/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00399-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

Although the Clerk of this court stamped the present petition “filed” on May 1, 2009, Foster certified she 1

executed the petition on April 29, 2009. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Court Doc. No. 1 at 15. 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 (11 Cir. 1999); th

Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11 Cir. 1993). “Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs th

or other records, [this court] must assume that [the instant petition] was delivered to prison authorities the day [Foster]

signed it....” Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11 Cir. 2001). In light of the foregoing, the court th

considers April 29, 2009 as the date of filing. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

SHANNA RENNA’ FOSTER, #256541, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

 v . ) CASE NO. 2:09-CV-399-WHA 

) [WO]

CYNTHIA WHEELER-WHITE, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is pending before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas

corpus relief filed by Shanna Renna’ Foster [“Foster”], a state inmate, on April 29, 2009.1

In this petition, Foster challenges the amount of credit awarded to her by the Circuit Court

of Jefferson County, Alabama on a sentence imposed for a third degree robbery conviction.

Foster also seeks amendment/reconsideration of this sentence based on her completion of

various prison programs. 

DISCUSSION

This court “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice” may

transfer an application for writ of habeas corpus to “the district court for the district within

Case 2:09-cv-00399-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 05/05/09 Page 1 of 3
In transferring the instant case, this court makes no determination regarding the merits of the petitioner’s 2

claims for relief nor whether the petitioner has exhausted available state court remedies prior to filing a federal

habeas petition as required by 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)(1)(A).

2

which the State court was held which convicted” the petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

Foster contends the amount of credit granted to her by the Circuit Court of Jefferson

County, Alabama on the robbery sentence imposed in 2003 is incorrect. Specifically,

Foster requests that such state court be required to award her additional credit towards her

sentence for the two (2) years she served while on probation and “the time [she] was out

on bond” awaiting trial. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Court Doc. No. 1 at 5, 7.

Moreover, Foster seeks amendment/reconsideration of her sentence because she has

“successfully completed several programs ... and [has] served more than half of [her]

sentence.” Id. at 8. Jefferson County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the court

concludes that transfer of this case to such other court for review and disposition is

appropriate.2

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before May 18, 2009 the parties may file objections to the

Case 2:09-cv-00399-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 05/05/09 Page 2 of 3
3

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the partyis objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings in the Recommendation

shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in

the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report

accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest

injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds th

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 th

F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the th

former Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 5 day of May, 2009. th

 /s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00399-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 05/05/09 Page 3 of 3