Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00664/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00664-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jim Edward Massey
Petitioner
Billy Mitchem
Respondent

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JIM EDWARD MASSEY, : 

Petitioner, : 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 07-0664-KD-M 

BILLY MITCHEM, : 

Respondent. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, an inmate at Limestone Correctional Facility in

the Northern District of Alabama, filed a petition for habeas

corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docs. 1, 4). Petitioner

challenges the constitutionality of his conviction for murder and

resulting sentence in the Circuit Court of Geneva County,

Alabama, in the Middle District of Alabama. 

Because Petitioner was convicted in the Middle District of

Alabama and is incarcerated in the Northern District, this Court

is the improper venue for this habeas action. Braden v. 30th

Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 497-501 (1973); 28

U.S.C. § 2241. This Court, however, may transfer this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) “in the interest of justice.” 

Dobard v. Johnson, 749 F.2d 1503, 1506-08 (11th Cir. 1985); see

also Naum v. Brown, 604 F.Supp. 1186, 1188 (E.D.N.Y. 1985)

(transferring pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 to court where

jurisdiction was proper because petitioner was a prisoner and a

pauper). 

Case 1:07-cv-00664-KD-M Document 12 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 3
2

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), this action could have been

originally brought in either the Northern or the Middle Districts of

Alabama. This Court chose the former since it is where McNabb was

convicted. However, if either Party prefers the Northern District,

that desire may be made known in an objection to this Recommendation. 

2

Inasmuch as the Middle District of Alabama is where

Petitioner’s conviction and sentence arose, it is recommended

that, in the interest of justice, this action be transferred to

the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Alabama for further proceedings.1 Braden, 410 U.S. at 497

(“Congress explicitly recognized the substantial advantages of

having these cases resolved in the court which originally imposed

the confinement or in the court located nearest the site of the

underlying controversy”).

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging

the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which

provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

Case 1:07-cv-00664-KD-M Document 12 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 3
3

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 25th day of February, 2008.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00664-KD-M Document 12 Filed 02/25/08 Page 3 of 3