Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_08-cv-00596/USCOURTS-alnd-2_08-cv-00596-0/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD SUTTON, :

 :

Petitioner, : CIVIL ACTION 07—00140-CG-B

 :

V. :

 :

WARDEN OF WEST CARROLL :

DETENTION CENTER, :

 :

Respondent, :

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action, which was filed by Petitioner Ronald Sutton

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, was transferred to this Court from the

United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,

Shreveport Division. (Doc. 7). According to the Transfer Order

(Doc. 7, #5), Petitioner is incarcerated at the West Carroll

Detention Center in Epps, Louisiana and is seeking to challenge his

conviction and sentence in the Tenth Judicial District, Jefferson

County, Alabama. Because Petitioner was convicted in Jefferson

County, which is located in the Northern District of Alabama, and

is incarcerated in Louisiana, this Court is not the proper venue for

this action. Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S.

484, 497-501, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 1131-32, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973). 

However, this Court may, “in the interest of justice” transfer this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Dobard v. Johnson, 749 F.

2d 1503, 1506-08 (llth Cir. 1985). Accordingly, because the

Case 2:08-cv-00596-JFG-TMP Document 8 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 4
2

Northern District of Alabama is where Petitioner’s conviction and

sentence arose, and due to the one year statute of limitation

requirement that § 2254 petitions be filed within one year of the

conclusion of the state’s review of a prisoner’s conviction, 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d), it is recommended that, in the “interest of

justice,” this action be transferred to the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Alabama for further proceedings.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge.

DONE this 15th day of February, 2008. 

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:08-cv-00596-JFG-TMP Document 8 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 4
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). 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,

in part, 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

Case 2:08-cv-00596-JFG-TMP Document 8 Filed 02/15/08 Page 3 of 4
4

3. 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 2:08-cv-00596-JFG-TMP Document 8 Filed 02/15/08 Page 4 of 4