Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00360/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00360-0/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 April 20, 2009, 1

Petitioner certified the petition for mailing on April 17, 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 (11 Cir. 1999); Garvey th

v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11 Cir. 1993). In light of the foregoing and for purposes of this th

Recommendation, the court considers April 17, 2009 as the date of filing. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

KIM LESLIE, #256 526, *

Petitioner, *

 

 v. * 2:09-CV-360-WHA

 (WO)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., *

Respondents. *

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

corpus filed by Petitioner on April 17, 2009. In this petition, Petitioner challenges 1

application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act and the amount of jail credit awarded to

her by the Circuit Court for Madison County, Alabama, on a sentence imposed on her in

2007 for convictions on arson and extortion.

DISCUSSION

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

Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus to “the district court for the district within

Case 2:09-cv-00360-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 04/21/09 Page 1 of 3
In transferring the instant case, this court makes no determination regarding the merits of Petitioner’s 2

claim for relief nor whether she has exhausted available state court remedies prior to filing a federal habeas

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

A decision on Petitioner’s application for in forma pauperis status is reserved for ruling by the 3

United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

2

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

seeks to challenge application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act and the amount of jail

credit granted by the Circuit Court for Madison County, Alabama. Madison 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 the 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).3

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before May 4, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify

the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. 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.

Case 2:09-cv-00360-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 04/21/09 Page 2 of 3
3

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report 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 th

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

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981 ) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 21 day of April, 2009. st

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00360-WHA-WC Document 3 Filed 04/21/09 Page 3 of 3