Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00358/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00358-0/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)

---

Although theClerk of this court stamped the present petition “filed” on April 20, 2009, Smallwood executed 1

the petition on April 13, 2009. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Court Doc. No. 1 at 15. The law is well settled

that a pro se inmate’s petition is deemed filed the date it is delivered to prison 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,

th

993 F.2d 776, 780 (11 Cir. 1993). “Absent evidence to the contrary in the form of prison logs or other records, [this th

court] must assume that [the instant petition] was delivered to prison authorities the day [Smallwood] signed it....”

Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11 Cir. 2001). In light of the foregoing, the court considers th

April 13, 2009 as the date of filing. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

CATRINA SMALLWOOD #238116, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-358-WHA

) [WO]

CYNTHIA S. WHEELER-WHITE, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

corpus relief filed by Catrina Smallwood [“Smallwood”], a state inmate, on April 13,

2009. In this petition, Smallwood challenges the amount of jail credit awarded to her by 1

the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama on a sentence imposed for a 2008 controlled

substance conviction. 

DISCUSSION

This court “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice” may

transfer an application for writ of habeas corpus to “the district court for the district within

which the State court was held which convicted” the petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

Case 2:09-cv-00358-WHA-TFM Document 2 Filed 04/28/09 Page 1 of 3
In transferring the instant case, this court makes no determination regarding the merits of the petitioner’s 2

claim for relief nor whether the petitioner has exhausted available state court remedies prior to filing a federal

habeas petition as required by 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b)(1)(A).

The petitioner filed neither the requisite filing fee nor an affidavit in support of a request for leave to proceed

3

in forma pauperis. However, under the circumstances of this case, matters related to the petitioner’s in forma

pauperis status, including the assessment and collection of any filing fee, should be undertaken by the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, this court will not address the petitioner’s failure to submit

documents necessary to a determination of her in forma pauperis status. 

2

Smallwood challenges the amount of jail credit granted by the Circuit Court of Mobile

County, Alabama and requests that such court be required to award her additional jail

credit for “the time [she] stayed out on bond....” Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -

Court Doc. No. 1 at 5. Mobile County is located within the jurisdiction of the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the

court concludes that transfer of this case to such other court for review and disposition is

appropriate.2

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

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

3

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before May 11, 2009 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

Case 2:09-cv-00358-WHA-TFM Document 2 Filed 04/28/09 Page 2 of 3
3

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 in the Recommendation

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 v. Reynolds th

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 th

F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the th

former Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 28th day of April, 2009.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00358-WHA-TFM Document 2 Filed 04/28/09 Page 3 of 3