Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-7_14-cv-00923/USCOURTS-alnd-7_14-cv-00923-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kendall Joseph Jones
Petitioner
Willie Thomas
Respondent

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KENDALL JOSEPH JONES, *

(AIS # 195764), *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00173-KD-B

*

WARDEN WILLIE THOMAS, *

*

Respondent. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Kendall Joseph Jones, a pretrial detainee at 

Bibb County Correctional Facility in Brent, Alabama, filed a 

petition seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

(Doc. 1). In the petition, Jones challenges the Alabama 

Department of Corrections’ decision to “take[] one year of good 

time” from him. Jones contends that the Department’s action is 

unlawful because he has not been convicted of any offense. (Id.,

at 7). 

The undersigned observes, as a preliminary matter, that 

Jones’ petition is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 

must instead be construed as a petition for section 2241 relief. 

A federal habeas petitioner who is “in custody pursuant to the 

judgment of a state court” may seek relief pursuant to title 28, 

section 2254(a) and (b). Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 

224 (5th Cir. 1987). However, a pretrial detainee is not “in 

Case 7:14-cv-00923-KOB-JEO Document 2 Filed 04/18/14 Page 1 of 4
2

custody” pursuant to a state court judgment so section 2254 

relief is unavailable. Id. “Petitioners who are pretrial 

detainees must instead seek relief through section 2241. That 

section provides a remedy for any person held in violation of 

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States 

‘regardless of whether a final judgment has been rendered and 

regardless of the status of the case pending against him.’”

Combs v. Coats, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84083, 2011 WL 3290386

(M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2011) (quoting Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 224);

see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 786 

(11th Cir. 2004) (section 2241 applies to individuals who a 

state places in pretrial detention); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 

F.3d 1049, 1060 (11th Cir. 2003) (same). Because Jones is a 

pretrial detainee at the Bibb County Correctional Facility, the 

Court construes the instant petition to be a section 2241 

petition. See Hiteshaw v. Butterfield, 262 Fed. App’x 162, 164 

(11th Cir. 2008).

A § 2241 petition must generally be filed in the district 

court where the petitioner is incarcerated, and the proper 

respondent is the person “who has custody” over the applicant. 

See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434, 124 S. Ct. 2711, 159 

L. Ed. 2d 513 (2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242 and 2243); Lowe 

v. Unnamed, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4121 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 15, 2005)

(“The proper respondent for [a § 2241] action is the person 

Case 7:14-cv-00923-KOB-JEO Document 2 Filed 04/18/14 Page 2 of 4
3

having custody over the detainee” and the proper venue is the 

place where the detainee is being held in custody).

In this case, the proper respondent is the custodian of the 

Bibb County Correctional Facility (“Bibb Facility”), and the 

Court has confirmed that Warden Willie Thomas is indeed the 

custodian of that facility. The Court also takes judicial 

notice of the fact that the Bibb facility is located in Brent, 

Alabama, which is outside of this judicial district. The Bibb 

facility is instead located within the Northern District of 

Alabama. Therefore, venue does not lie in this Court.

“The district court of a district in which is filed a case 

laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or 

if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any 

district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1406(a). Rather than recommending dismissal, the 

undersigned finds that, in the interests of justice, this action 

should be transferred to the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Alabama. It is so recommended. 

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 

Case 7:14-cv-00923-KOB-JEO Document 2 Filed 04/18/14 Page 3 of 4
4

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. 

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 17th day of April, 2014.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 7:14-cv-00923-KOB-JEO Document 2 Filed 04/18/14 Page 4 of 4