Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00602/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00602-0/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

---

1 In habeas actions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, jurisdiction as a general

rule lies in the district of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). 

Jurisdiction is determined by the district of confinement “as of the time of filing of the petition.” 

Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 334 F.3d 1259, 1263 (11th Cir. 2003).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IVAN TZEKOV, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0602-KD-C

BILL BATEMAN, et al., :

Respondent. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On September 26, 2006, Petitioner signed and placed in the mail a § 2241 petition

for writ of habeas corpus, along with the $5.00 filing fee. The petition, filing fee and a

letter motion from the Petitioner requesting the Court to dismiss the petition without

prejudice were all received on September 29, 2006. Petitioner stated in his letter motion

that he had been transferred from the Perry County Correctional Center to the "ACDC in

Georgia" and would like to re-file his petition in the proper court in Atlanta, Georgia.1

 It

is apparent from these filings that reached the Court on the same day, that petitioner was

transferred from Alabama to Georgia between the date of signing the petition, September

Case 2:06-cv-00602-KD-C Document 5 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 3
2

26 and the date on which it was filed, September 29, 2006.

Under these circumstances and at petitioner’s request, it is recommended that this

action be dismissed without prejudice so as to afford petitioner the opportunity to file his

petition in the district of confinement. Rule 41(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to this

Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 2nd day of October, 2006.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00602-KD-C Document 5 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ten 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.

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

ten 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 objecting 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 judge 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.

Case 2:06-cv-00602-KD-C Document 5 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 3