Garza v. Billups

Full title: BENIGNO STEVEN GARZA, III, # 243466, Petitioner, v. PHYLLIS BILLUPS, et…

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

Date published: Sep 25, 2015

Civil Action No. 2:15cv706-WKW (WO) (M.D. Ala. Sep. 25, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:15cv706-WKW (WO)

09-25-2015

BENIGNO STEVEN GARZA, III, # 243466, Petitioner, v. PHYLLIS BILLUPS, 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 petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Benigno Steven Garza, III ("Garza"), a state inmate incarcerated at Kilby Correctional Facility in Mt. Meigs, Alabama. Doc. # 1. Garza challenges his 2012 conviction in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama, for various controlled substance offenses. He received a sentence of life in prison.

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). Garza challenges his convictions and sentence entered by the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama. Baldwin County is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. This court concludes that transferring this case to such other court for hearing and determination is appropriate.¹

1 A decision on Garza's application for in forma pauperis status (Doc. # 2) is reserved for ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern 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 Southern District of Alabama under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation or before October 9, 2015. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions 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); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Lanning 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).

Done this 25^th day of September, 2015.

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE