IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

ROMANUS M. ISIOFIA *

 Petitioner, *

v. * 2:06-CV-683-MHT

 (WO)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY *

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, et al., *

Respondents. *

 _______________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner, Romanus Isiofia, filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas

corpus on August 3, 2006. Isiofia is an Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”)

detainee being held at the Perry County Correctional Center located in Uniontown, Alabama.

Isiofia alleges that his continued confinement by the INS violates the provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1226(c)(1). 

I. DISCUSSION

A 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief must be filed in the district court

in which a petitioner is incarcerated. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“The

plain language of the [28 U.S.C. § 2241] habeas statute ... confirms the general rule that for

core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one

district: the district of confinement.”); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410

Case 2:06-cv-00683-MHT-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

U.S. 484 (1973); Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir.1991); United

States v. Plain, 748 F.2d 620, 621 (11th Cir. 1984); Blau v. United States, 566 F.2d 526, 527

(5th Cir. 1978). Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Perry County Correctional Facility

located in Uniontown, Alabama. This correctional facility is located within the jurisdiction

of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, this court

lacks jurisdiction to consider the habeas corpus petition filed by Isiofia. Plain, 748 F.2d at

621. However, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of

justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might

have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Under the circumstances of this case as outlined

herein, the court concludes that this case should be transferred to the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Alabama for review and determination.. 

II. 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. § 1404(a).

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before August 27, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects.

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,

Case 2:06-cv-00683-MHT-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report 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 14th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00683-MHT-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 3 of 3