Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00573/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00573-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mobile County Jail
Respondent
Carleton W. Rogers
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

The address for the Court in Southern District of Texas, Victoria Division, is : 

Clerk, U.S. District Court

P.O. Box 1638

Victoria, Texas 77902 

The Court has examined its docket and dockets of other courts for other actions filed by

petitioner. Presently, there is pending on the docket for the Southern District of Texas, a civil

rights action filed by petitioner, Carleton Rogers v. Police Chief Wooldridge, et al., CA V-05-

126. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARLETON W. ROGERS, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0573-WS-C

MOBILE COUNTY JAIL, :

Respondent. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, an inmate who is presently incarcerated in Texas, filed a petition for

habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while he was incarcerated in this district

(Doc.1). Petitioner’s action has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4). It is the undersigned’s

recommendation that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, Victoria Division.1

Case 1:05-cv-00573-WS-C Document 11 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 4
Previously, petitioner has filed actions in this Court. Carleton W. Rogers v. Bell, et al.,

CA 03-0853-WS-B (S.D. Ala. Sept. 1, 2004) (Doc. 1- complaint for false arrest in Edna, Jackson

County, Texas), was dismissed for his failure to prosecute and obey the Court’s order. The

action of Carlton Wayne Rogers v. Judge Murphy, et al., CA 88-296-CB-C (S.D. Ala. Mar. 13,

1989), was also dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to obey the Court’s order.

Furthermore, petitioner appears to have been convicted in this Court in USA v. Thomas,

et al., CR 97-256-RV-S, for possession of crack cocaine for which he received a sentence that

included a 90-day period of imprisonment with the Bureau of Prisons. 

2

 The original petition (Doc. 1) and amended petition (Doc.8) indicate that

petitioner is challenging the constitutionality of his conviction for assault on a police

officer with a weapon and the resulting sentence rendered by the Circuit Court in Jackson

County, Texas, which is located in the Southern District of Texas, Victoria Division. 

Because petitioner was incarcerated at the Mobile County Metro Jail in the Southern

District of Alabama when he filed this action, this Court has concurrent jurisdiction over

this action with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. 

Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 497-501, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 1131-32,

35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973). 

This Court, however, may transfer petitioner’s action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241(d) “in the exercise of its discretion and in the furtherance of justice[.]” This Court

finds that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas is more

familiar with the state courts within its district, and, in the event that an evidentiary

hearing becomes necessary, it is a more convenient forum. Id. at 493-494, 93 S.Ct. at

1129. Therefore, it is recommended that, in the furtherance of justice, this action be

transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas for

Case 1:05-cv-00573-WS-C Document 11 Filed 04/17/06 Page 2 of 4
3

further proceedings.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to this

report and recommendation. 

DONE this 14th day of April, 2006.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00573-WS-C Document 11 Filed 04/17/06 Page 3 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 1:05-cv-00573-WS-C Document 11 Filed 04/17/06 Page 4 of 4