Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00341/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00341-0/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 April 14, 2006, York

1

certified the petition for mailing on April 2, 2006. 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, 993 F.2d 776, th

780 (11 Cir. 1993). In light of the foregoing and for purposes of this Recommendation, the court considers th

April 2, 2006 as the date of filing. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES YORK, #109642, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-341-WHA

)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action is pending before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for

habeas corpus relief filed by Charles York [“York”], a state inmate, on April 2, 2006. The 1

petition establishes that York was convicted of murder by the Circuit Court of Mobile

County, Alabama on March 28, 1974. It is this conviction which York challenges in the

instant habeas petition.

 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). York attacks

Case 2:06-cv-00341-WHA-CSC Document 2 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 3
2. The petitioner failed to file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis nor did he 1

submit the $5 filing fee. However, under the circumstances of this case, this court makes no ruling on

whether the petitioner should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis as the assessment and collection of

any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

2

convictions entered against him by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. 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 a transfer of this case

to such other court for review and disposition is appropriate. 

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).1

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before May 1, 2006 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

Case 2:06-cv-00341-WHA-CSC Document 2 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 3
3

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 18 day of April, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00341-WHA-CSC Document 2 Filed 04/18/06 Page 3 of 3