Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00184/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARRELL AMOS TAITE, : 

 : 

 Petitioner. : 

 : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0184-KD-M 

 : 

WARDEN BRUCE PEARSON, : 

 : 

 Respondent. : 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 This is an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a federal 

prisoner which was referred for report and recommendation 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. 

Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). This action 

is now ready for consideration. The record is adequate to 

determine Petitioner's claims; no evidentiary hearing is 

required. It is recommended that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc. 12) be granted, that the habeas petition be denied (Docs. 

1-2), and that this action be dismissed. 

 Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to possess, with 

intent to distribute, crack cocaine and possession, with intent 

to distribute, crack cocaine, in this Court on May 10, 1995; he 

received a sentence of thirty years in the penitentiary on 

Case 1:10-cv-00184-KD-M Document 13 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 5
August 14, 1995 (Doc. 1). United States v. Taite, C.A. 94-149-

CB (S.D. Ala. August 14, 1995) (Docs. 135, 191). Appeal was 

made to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the 

conviction and sentence (Taite, Doc. 253). Petitioner filed a 

complaint with this Court on April 21, 2010, raising a single 

claim: He is actually innocent of an earlier crime which was 

used as an enhancement to the sentence under this conviction 

(Docs. 1-2). 

 Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss which asserts that 

this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter as 

Petitioner is incarcerated in Mississippi (Doc. 12). 

Specifically, § 2241 actions require that a court have in 

personam jurisdiction over the petitioner. Fernandez v. United 

States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991) ("Section 2241 

petitions may be brought only in the district court for the 

district in which the inmate is incarcerated"). In his 

petition, Taite acknowledges that he is incarcerated in Yazoo 

City, Mississippi (Doc. 1). 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it does not 

have jurisdiction over this matter. Therefore, it is 

recommended that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) be 

Granted, that this § 2241 petition (Docs. 1-2) be denied, and 

that this action be dismissed. It is further recommended that 

Case 1:10-cv-00184-KD-M Document 13 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 5
judgment be entered in favor of Respondent Warden Bruce Pearson 

and against Petitioner Darrell Amos Taite. 

 Furthermore, the undersigned recommends that a certificate 

of appealability (hereinafter COA) in this case be denied. The 

habeas corpus statute makes clear that an applicant is entitled 

to appeal a district court’s denial of his habeas corpus 

petition only where a circuit justice or judge issues a COA. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A COA may issue only where “the applicant 

has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, a habeas 

petition is being denied on procedural grounds without reaching 

the merits of the underlying constitutional claims, “a COA 

should issue [only] when the prisoner shows . . . that jurists 

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a 

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that 

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336 (2003) (“Under the controlling standard, a petitioner 

must ‘sho[w] that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, 

for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been 

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were 

“adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”’”). 

Case 1:10-cv-00184-KD-M Document 13 Filed 08/05/10 Page 3 of 5
Inasmuch as Taite has filed this action in the wrong court, a 

reasonable jurist could not conclude either that this Court is 

in error in dismissing the instant petition or that Taite should 

be allowed to proceed further, Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (“Where a 

plain procedural bar is present and the district court is 

correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 

could not conclude either that the district court erred in 

dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed 

to proceed further.”). 

CONCLUSION

 As set out above, it is recommended that Petitioner’s 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241, be denied. Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate 

of appealability and, therefore, he is not entitled to appeal in 

forma pauperis.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS 

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION 

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or 

anything in it must, within fourteen days of the date of service 

of this document, file specific written objections with the 

clerk of court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo

determination by the district judge of anything in the 

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual 

findings of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 

Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. 

Case 1:10-cv-00184-KD-M Document 13 Filed 08/05/10 Page 4 of 5
Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The 

procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of 

the magistrate judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 

(June 1, 1997), which provides that: 

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a 

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter 

excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a 

"Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge's 

Recommendation" within fourteen days after being served 

with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time 

is established by order. The statement of objection shall 

specify those portions of the recommendation to which 

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The 

objection party shall submit to the district judge, at the 

time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the 

party's arguments that the magistrate judge's 

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different 

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy 

of the original brief submitted to the magistrate judge, 

although a copy of the original brief may be submitted or 

referred to and incorporated into the brief in support of 

the objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the 

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the objection. 

 A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a 

Court of Appeals; only the district judge's order or judgment 

can be appealed. 

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the 

magistrate finds that the tapes and original records in this 

action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning 

to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for 

a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination that 

transcription is necessary is required before the United States 

will pay the cost of the transcript. 

 Done this 4th day of August, 2010. 

 s/BERT. W. MILLING, JR.

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00184-KD-M Document 13 Filed 08/05/10 Page 5 of 5