Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00436/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00436-0/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

ANTHONY L. MARBURY, # 226054, ) 

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:13cv436-WHA

 ) (WO) 

STATE OF ALABAMA, 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 Anthony L. Marbury (“Marbury”) on about June 20, 2013. 

(Doc. No. 1.) In his petition, Marbury challenges an October 2011 judgment of the Clay

County Circuit Court revoking his probation, which resulted in his return to the state

penitentiary to serve a sentence imposed by that same court.

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). Marbury challenges a judgment ofthe ClayCountyCircuit Court revoking

his probation on a prison sentence imposed by that same court. ClayCounty is located within

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. 

Consequently, this court concludes that the transfer of this case to such other court for

Case 2:13-cv-00436-WHA-CSC Document 3 Filed 06/27/13 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 July 11, 2013. Anyobjections 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

A decision on Marbury’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-00436-WHA-CSC Document 3 Filed 06/27/13 Page 2 of 3
Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 27 day of June, 2013. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-00436-WHA-CSC Document 3 Filed 06/27/13 Page 3 of 3