Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:14cv961-WKW (WO)
09-18-2014
SHANNON K. LISBY, # 138070, Petitioner, v. KENNETH JONES, et al., Respondents.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause is before the court on a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1) filed on September 11, 2014, by Shannon K. Lisby ("Lisby"), a state inmate incarcerated at Bullock Correctional Facility in Union Springs, Alabama. By his petition, Lisby challenges Alabama authorities' calculation of a sentence of imprisonment imposed against him in 2000 by the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Alabama.
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). Lisby is challenging the calculation of a sentence imposed by the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Alabama. Lauderdale County lies within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Consequently, this court concludes the transfer of this case to such other court for hearing and determination is appropriate.
A decision on Lisby's application for in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 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 1, 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 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 (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 18th day of September, 2014.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE