Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00706/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00706-0/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)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BENIGNO STEVEN GARZA, III, # 243466, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No.

v. ) 2:15cv706-WKW

) (WO)

PHYLLIS BILLUPS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause is before the court on a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Benigno Steven Garza, III (“Garza”), a state inmate incarcerated at

Kilby Correctional Facility in Mt. Meigs, Alabama. Doc. # 1. Garza challenges his 2012

conviction in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama, for various controlled substance

offenses. He received a sentence of life in prison.

DISCUSSION

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

a petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus to “the district court for the district within

which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [the petitioner].” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(d). Garza challenges his convictions and sentence entered by the Circuit Court of

Baldwin County, Alabama. Baldwin County is within the jurisdiction of the United States

District Courtfor the Southern District of Alabama. This court concludesthat transferring this

case to such other court for hearing and determination is appropriate.

1

A decision on Garza’s application for in forma pauperis status (Doc. # 2) is reserved for

1

ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. 

Case 2:15-cv-00706-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 2
CONCLUSION

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

TRANSFERREDto theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofAlabama under

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

It isfurther ORDEREDthatthe partiesshallfile anyobjectionsto thisRecommendation

or before October 9, 2015. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal

conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or

general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and

factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge

on appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions

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); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein v.

th

Lanning 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).

th

Done this 25 day of September, 2015.

th

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:15-cv-00706-WKW-CSC Document 3 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 2