Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00564/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00564-0/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

FREDRICK CRENSHAW, :

AIS 217331,

:

Petitioner,

:

vs. CA 16-0564-KD-C

:

WARDEN K. JONES, et al.,

:

Respondents.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, a state prisoner presently housed at Ventress Correctional Facility in 

Barbour County, Alabama,

1 filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, in this Court on November 8, 2016. (Doc. 1, at 13.) Though filed on this 

Court’s § 2254 form, petitioner seeks not to attack the conviction upon which he finds 

himself presently imprisoned at Ventress Correctional Facility but, instead, a detainer 

lodged against him in regard to charges pending against him in Butler County, 

Alabama. (See id. at 2, 3, 5 & 11 (references to Butler County, Alabama and charges 

pending against him in that county).) 

The undersigned notes that Barbour County, Alabama, where Crenshaw is 

presently housed, and Butler County, Alabama, the county in which charges are 

presently pending against him, are both located in the Northern Division of the Middle 

District of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 81(b)(1) (“The Northern Division [of the Middle 

District of Alabama] comprises the counties of Autauga, Barbour, Bullock, Butler, 

 1 As noted by Crenshaw, Ventress is located in Clayton, Alabama. (Doc. 1, at 1 & 

13.) Clayton, Alabama “is a town in and the county seat of Barbour County, Alabama.” 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Alabama (last visited, November 15, 2016, 5:18 p.m.).

Case 1:16-cv-00564-KD-C Document 3 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Chilton, Coosa, Covington, Crenshaw, Elmore, Lowndes, Montgomery, and Pike.” 

(emphasis supplied)).

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) confers concurrent jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions 

upon the districts of confinement and conviction. This Court does not even enjoy

concurrent jurisdiction in this action, since the subject detainer has been filed against 

Crenshaw, and he is presently confined on other charges, in the Middle District of 

Alabama. Accordingly, this action is due to be transferred to the Middle District of 

Alabama, the district of confinement and the district in which the detainer has been 

lodged (and in which he may be subsequently convicted and sentenced). Compare 28 

U.S.C. § 2241(d) (“Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is 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, the application may be filed in the district court 

for the district wherein such person is 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.” 

(emphasis supplied)) with Greeson v. Crews, 2014 WL 7178515, *1 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 

2014) (transferring case to the Middle District of Florida, the district of conviction and 

confinement).

Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that, in the furtherance of justice, 

this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of 

Alabama for any and all further proceedings.2

 2 The undersigned does not rule on petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (Doc. 2) because this is a decision best left to the United States District Court for 

the Middle District of Alabama. 

Case 1:16-cv-00564-KD-C Document 3 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 3
3

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in 

it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 

72(b); S.D.ALA. L.R. 72.4. The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, 

“[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations 

contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based 

on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time 

period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence 

of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if 

necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection 

must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state 

the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not 

specific.

DONE this the 16th day of November, 2016.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00564-KD-C Document 3 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 3