Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DORTHEA APRIL STAFIRN,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 4:11cv113-MP/WCS

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER § 2254 PETITION

Petitioner Stafirn, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. She also filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, but indicates that she asked that a check for $5.00 (the amount of the filing

fee) be taken from her account and sent to the court. Doc. 2. 

When an application for habeas corpus relief is filed "by a person in custody

under the judgment and sentence of a State court of a State which contains two or more

Federal judicial districts, the application may be filed in the district court for the district

wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the

State court was held which convicted and sentenced him and each of such district

Case 4:11-cv-00113-MP-WCS Document 5 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application." 28 U.S.C. §

2241(d). 

Petitioner is currently in custody at Florida State Hospital, having been

adjudicated incompetent to proceed to trial on criminal charges in the Fifteenth Judicial

Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. While not technically "convicted," she is clearly in

custody pursuant to the judgment of that state court. 

Jurisdiction is appropriate in this district and in the Southern District of Florida,

where the judgment imposing her custody was entered. § 2241(d). The district in which

the judgment at issue was entered would appear to be the most convenient and

appropriate venue, and the petition should be transferred to the Southern District of

Florida. § 2241(d). See also, Parker v. Singletary, 974 F.2d 1562, 1582 and nn. 114

and 118 (11th Cir. 1992) (finding transfer "in furtherance of justice" under § 2241(d),

citations omitted); Eagle v. Linahan, 279 F.3d 926, 933, n. 9 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting

that the practice in district courts in Georgia was to transfer petitions to the district of

conviction under § 2241(d)). 

Petitioner has also submitted two packages of exhibits, one of which was

accompanied by a cover letter asking that the documents be filed in this case. One

package contains a notice of appeal dated May 17, 2011, appealing the state court

order rendered April 26, 2011, denying habeas corpus relief. Attached thereto is

Petitioner's response to order to show cause which references Exs. A-W, which are all

included. The other package (accompanied by the cover letter) includes a notice of

appeal dated May 25, 2011, also appealing the order rendered on April 26, 2011. It

references Exs. A-QQ, which are all included..

Case No. 4:11cv113-MP/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00113-MP-WCS Document 5 Filed 06/02/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

The documents are returned to Petitioner by separate order. They are not

referenced in the petition, and the court does not sift through voluminous documents in

search of a possible claim. 

It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that this cause be TRANSFERRED

to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for all further

proceedings.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida on June 2, 2011. 

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO PARTIES

Within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation, a party may serve and file

specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party's

objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:11cv113-MP/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00113-MP-WCS Document 5 Filed 06/02/11 Page 3 of 3