Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00642/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00642-0/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

VANESSA GILL, # 263044, ) 

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:13cv642-WHA

 ) (WO) 

BOBBY BARRETT, et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause is before the court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by state inmate Vanessa Gill (“Gill”). (Doc. No. 1.) In her

petition, Gill challenges her murder conviction and resulting sentence imposed in

December 2008 by the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama.

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

transfer a petitioner’s application for a 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). Gill challenges a conviction and sentence

entered against her by the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama. Dallas County

is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Alabama. Consequently, this court concludes that the transfer of this case

Case 2:13-cv-00642-WHA-CSC Document 2 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 3
to such other court for hearing and determination is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it isthe RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this

case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District

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

It is further

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

Recommendation on or before October 16, 2013. 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.

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 ormanifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright,

677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11

th th

Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en th

2

Case 2:13-cv-00642-WHA-CSC Document 2 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 3
banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 2 day of October, 2013.

nd

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-00642-WHA-CSC Document 2 Filed 10/02/13 Page 3 of 3