Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_17-cv-00154/USCOURTS-almd-2_17-cv-00154-0/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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH SCOTT CAPLES, # 295489, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

 v. ) Civil Action No. 2:17cv154-WHA

) 

WALTER MYERS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 filed on March 17, 2017, by Joseph Scott Caples (“Caples”), a state inmate incarcerated at 

Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama. Doc. 1. Caples challenges his conviction for 

attempted murder and the resulting 25-year sentence imposed by the Mobile County Circuit Court 

in March 2014.

II. DISCUSSION

Title 28, United States Code, Section 2241(d) allows Caples to bring his § 2254 petition 

in either (a) the district court for the district wherein he is in custody (here, the Middle District of 

Alabama, where Easterling Correctional Facility is located), or (b) the district court for the district 

within which the state court that convicted and sentenced him was held (the Southern District of 

Alabama, where Mobile County is located). Section 2241(d) provides that this court “in the 

exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice,” may transfer a petitioner’s § 2254 petition 

to “the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and 

sentenced [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

Case 2:17-cv-00154-WHA-GMB Document 2 Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 2
2

Because this matter stems from a conviction and sentence imposed by the Mobile County 

Circuit Court, and since the records related to these matters are located in Mobile County, this 

court finds that the furtherance of justice and judicial economy will be best served by transferring 

this case to the United States District Court for Southern District of Alabama for review and 

disposition.

III. CONCLUSION

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

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama under 

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

It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation 

on or before April 4, 2017. 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 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; Stein v. Lanning Secs., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).

DONE this 21st day of March, 2017.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:17-cv-00154-WHA-GMB Document 2 Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 2