Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00595/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00595-0/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)

---

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CLIFTON A. LAVINSKEY, #262624, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-595-TMH

)

GARY HETZEL, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is pending before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas

corpus relief filed by Clifton A. Lavinskey [“Lavinskey”], a state inmate currently

incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility, on June 22, 2012. In this petition,

1

Lavinskey challenges convictions for first degree rape and first degree sexual abuse

imposed upon him by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama in September of 2008.

II. DISCUSSION

“[A]n application for a writ of habeas corpus ... made by a person in custody under

the judgment and sentence of a State court of a State which contains two or more Federal

judicial districts ... may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is

The law is well settled that a pro se inmate’s petition is deemed filed the date it is delivered to prison

1

officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-272 (1988); Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339,

1340-41 (11 Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11 Cir. 1993). The petition indicates Lavinskey

th th

submitted the petition to prison officials for mailing on June 22, 2012. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief -

Doc. No. 1 at 15. In light of the foregoing and for purposes of the proceedings herein, the court considers June 22,

2012 as the date of filing.

Case 2:12-cv-00595-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 07/12/12 Page 1 of 3
in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held

which convicted and sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have concurrent

jurisdiction to entertain the application. The district court for the district wherein such an

application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may

transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination.” 28

U.S.C. § 2241(d);see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“[I]n the interest of justice, a district court

may transfer any civil action to any other district ... where it might have been brought.”).

Lavinskey is presently incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio,

Alabama. This facility is located within the jurisdiction of the this court. In the instant

habeas petition, Lavinskey, however, attacks the constitutionality of convictions imposed

upon him by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama and requests relief from such

convictions. Mobile County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, concurrent jurisdiction exists between

this court and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

Upon thorough review of the petition and in the furtherance of justice, the court

concludes transfer of this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District

of Alabama for review and disposition is appropriate.

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.

2

Case 2:12-cv-00595-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 07/12/12 Page 2 of 3
It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 26, 2012 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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 decisions of the former Fifth Circuit

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

Done this 12th day of July, 2012.

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:12-cv-00595-TMH-TFM Document 4 Filed 07/12/12 Page 3 of 3