Banks v. Jones

Full title: TIMOTHY BANKS, # 259493, Petitioner, v. KARLA JONES, et al., Respondents.

Court: DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 29, 2014

Civil Action No. 2:14cv951-MHT (WO) (M.D. Ala. Sep. 29, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:14cv951-MHT (WO)

09-29-2014

TIMOTHY BANKS, # 259493, Petitioner, v. KARLA JONES, et al., Respondents.

CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause is before the court on a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief filed on September 10, 2014, by Timothy Banks ("Banks"), a state inmate incarcerated at Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama. Doc. # 1. Banks challenges his 2008 convictions in the Circuit Court of Hale County, Alabama, for two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison for each count of conviction, the terms to run consecutively.

DISCUSSION

This court, "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice," may transfer a petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus to "the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [the petitioner]." See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Banks challenges his convictions and sentence entered by the Circuit Court of Hale County, Alabama. Hale County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Consequently, this court concludes that the transfer of this case to such other court for hearing and determination is appropriate.¹

1 A decision on Banks's application for in forma pauperis status (Doc. # 2) is reserved for ruling by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the Recommendation on or before October 13, 2014. 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; therefore, 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 (5^th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11^th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11^th 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 29^th day of September, 2014.

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE