Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00113/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00113-0/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

AARON D. CAUSEY, # 245691, ) 

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:13cv113-TMH

 ) (WO) 

CHRISTOPHER GORDY, et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause is before the court on a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus

relief filed by Alabama inmate Aaron D. Causey (“Causey”) on February 20, 2013. Doc. No.

1. In his petition, Causey challenges his 2006 guilty plea convictions in the Circuit Court of

Calhoun County on charges of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, burglary, and

attempted assault.

DISCUSSION

This court, “in the exercise ofits discretion and in furtherance ofjustice,” maytransfer

a petitioner’s application for 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). Causey challenges convictions and sentences entered against him by the

Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama. Calhoun 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 the transfer of this case to such other court for

Case 2:13-cv-00113-TMH-SRW Document 3 Filed 04/08/13 Page 1 of 3
hearing and determination is appropriate.1

CONCLUSION

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

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 the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the

Recommendation on or before April 22, 2013. Any objections filed must specificallyidentify

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 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 of the

A decision on Causey’s application for in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 2) is reserved 1

for ruling by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

2

Case 2:13-cv-00113-TMH-SRW Document 3 Filed 04/08/13 Page 2 of 3
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 8 day of April, 2013. th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-00113-TMH-SRW Document 3 Filed 04/08/13 Page 3 of 3