Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00461/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00461-0/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)

---

1

Although the Clerk of this court stamped the present petition “received” on May 20, 2009, Swopes certified

she placed the petition in the prison mail system on May 14, 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 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 1993). “Absent evidence to the contrary in the

form of prison logs or other records, [this court] must assume that [the instant petition] was delivered to prison

authorities the day” Swopes certified she undertook such action. Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301

(11th Cir. 2001). In light of the foregoing, the court considers May 14, 2009 as the date of filing. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

SABRINA F. SWOPES, )

AIS #162731, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:09-CV-461-ID

) [WO]

CYNTHIA WHEELER-WHITE, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

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 Sabrina F. Swopes [“Swopes”], a state inmate, on May 14, 2009.1

 In this

habeas petition, Swopes challenges the constitutionality of a sentence imposed upon her on

July 29, 2005 by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama for second degree robbery.

Swopes also alleges she received ineffective assistance of counsel during the proceedings

related to her robbery conviction. In addition, Swopes seeks an additional award of timeserved credit towards this sentence and requests amendment of her sentence regarding

waiver of fines and restitution. 

Case 2:09-cv-00461-ID-CSC Document 4 Filed 05/22/09 Page 1 of 3
2

In transferring the instant case, this court makes no determination regarding the merits of the petitioner’s

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

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 which the

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

alleges the sentence imposed upon her by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama for

second degree robbery is inconsistent with other defendants. Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus - Court Doc. No. 1 at 5. Swopes next contends counsel provided ineffective

assistance during the state court proceedings regarding her robbery conviction. Id. at 7.

Swopes also seeks amendment/waiver of the fines and restitution ordered by the trial court.

Id. at 8. Moreover, Swopes alleges the amount of credit awarded to her by the Circuit Court

of Madison County, Alabama towards service of the robbery sentence is incorrect.

Specifically, Swopes requests that the trial court be required to award her additional credit

towards her sentence “for her time that she ... was on bond” awaiting trial and the time she

served on probation. Id. at 14. 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 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

Case 2:09-cv-00461-ID-CSC Document 4 Filed 05/22/09 Page 2 of 3
3

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 June 4, 2009 the parties may file objections to the

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

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is 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 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds

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

1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth

Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 22nd day of May, 2009.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00461-ID-CSC Document 4 Filed 05/22/09 Page 3 of 3