Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00462/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00462-0/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)

---

1

 Although the Clerk of this court stamped the present petition “filed” on May 20, 2009,

Petitioner certified the petition for mailing on May 19, 2009. 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 (11th Cir. 1999); Garvey

v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 1993). In light of the foregoing and for purposes of this

Recommendation, the court considers May 19, 2009 as the date of filing. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

ASHLEY MCNEESE, #257 779 *

Petitioner, *

 

 v. * 2:09-CV-462-ID

 (WO)

CYNTHIA WHEELER-WHITE, WARDEN, *

et al.,

Respondents. *

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

corpus relief filed by Petitioner on May 19, 2009.1

 In this petition, Petitioner challenges the

amount of jail time credited to her on a sentence imposed by the Circuit Court for Madison

County, Alabama, with regard to her 2009 convictions for third degree burglary, criminal

possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and fraudulent use of a credit card.

Petitioner’s petition also indicates that she seeks placement in an early release program,

credit for time she was out on bond awaiting trial, and reinstatement on probation where she

claims she was wrongfully accused and coerced into violating her probation. 

DISCUSSION

Case 2:09-cv-00462-ID-CSC Document 3 Filed 05/22/09 Page 1 of 3
2

In transferring the instant case, this court makes no determination regarding the merits of Petitioner’s

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

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

3

Petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the

circumstances of this case, however, matters related to 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 Northern

District of Alabama. 

2

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

Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus to “the district court for the district within

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

seeks to challenge matters associated with a conviction(s) and/or sentence imposed on her

by the Circuit Court for Madison County, Alabama. Madison County is located within the

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

of the foregoing, the court concludes that the 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 Northern District of Alabama

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).3

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before June 4, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify

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

Case 2:09-cv-00462-ID-CSC Document 3 Filed 05/22/09 Page 2 of 3
3

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 (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 22nd day of May, 2009.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00462-ID-CSC Document 3 Filed 05/22/09 Page 3 of 3