Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00087/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Demond Greenwood
Petitioner
Gwendolyn C. Mosley
Respondent

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEMOND GREENWOOD, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-0087-BH-C

GWENDOLYN C. MOSLEY, :

Respondent. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, an inmate at Easterling Correctional Facility in the Middle District of

Alabama, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) with a

motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (Doc. 2). Petitioner is challenging the

constitutionality of his convictions for first-degree rape, first-degree assault, and firstdegree robbery, and the resulting sentences, rendered in the Circuit Court of Dale County,

Alabama, in the Middle District of Alabama. 

Due to Petitioner being incarcerated at Easterling Correctional Facility in the

Middle District and being convicted in Dale County, Alabama, in the Middle District of

Alabama, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this habeas action. Braden v. 30th

Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 497-501, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 1131-32 (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, 1508 (11th Cir.

Case 1:07-cv-00087-BH-C Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 4
1985); see 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). Inasmuch as the Middle District of Alabama is where

petitioner’s convictions and sentences arose, and due to the one-year statute of limitations

requiring that § 2254 petitions be filed within one year of the conclusion of the State’s

review of a prisoner’s conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), 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. Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 93 S.Ct. at

1131 (“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.”).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to this

Report and Recommendation. 

DONE this 11th day of April, 2007. 

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00087-BH-C Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 4
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. 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

this 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 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 case 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.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00087-BH-C Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-00087-BH-C Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 Page 4 of 4