United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RUSS WALKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate incarcerated in the Sumter County Jail in Americus,
Georgia, filed this pro se action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. While the court finds most of the petition
illegible, Petitioner appears to challenge the manner in
which his sentences imposed by the State of Georgia
“are being carried out” by both the federal
government and the State of Georgia during his incarceration
in the Sumter County, Georgia Jail. Doc. 1 at
review of the instant § 2241 petition, one of several
recently filed by Cobble with this court, the Magistrate
Judge concludes that the petition is due to be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
petitioner's challenge to the execution of his sentence
is properly considered under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the
general habeas statute. Williams v. Pearson, 197
Fed. App'x. 872, 876 (11th Cir. 2006). As a general rule,
a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief
“may be brought only in the district court for the
district in which the inmate is incarcerated.”
Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d, 1488,
1495 (11th Cir. 1991); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-495 (1973)
(“The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the
prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds
[him] in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.”).
While § 2241 (d) creates an explicit exception to the
exclusive “district-of-confinement” rule,
allowing that a state prisoner may, in the alternative, file
in the district in which he was convicted and sentenced in
state court, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction
under §§ 2241(a) and (d) to entertain a state
prisoner's habeas petition challenging the execution of
his sentence when the facility in which the prisoner is
currently incarcerated is not within the district of that
federal court nor is it the court of jurisdiction for the
district where the prisoner was convicted or sentenced.
See Dobard v. Johnson, 749 F.2d 1503, 1505-07 (11th
the above principles, this court lacks jurisdiction over
Petitioner's current § 2241 habeas petition.
Petitioner is confined in the Sumter County Jail in Americus,
Georgia. Thus, the district of confinement for Petitioner is
indisputably the Middle District of Georgia. See 28
U.S.C. § 90(b)(4). Likewise, Petitioner's conviction
record reflects he is serving a term of imprisonment imposed
by a Georgia state court. See
October 23, 2019). Accordingly, under § 2241(d), the
only court with jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner's
habeas petition is a federal court in Georgia. Because this
court lacks jurisdiction under § 2241(d), the petition
is subject to dismissal and the court finds the
“interests of justice” do not warrant a transfer
of this case to a federal court in Georgia. See 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a).
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
that on or before December 1, 2019,
Petitioner may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any
objection filed must clearly identify the factual findings
and legal conclusions set forth in the Recommendation to
which Petitioner objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general
objections will not be considered by the District Court.
Petitioner is advised this Recommendation is not a final
order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
to file a written objection to the proposed findings of fact
and legal conclusions contained in the Recommendation shall
bar a party from a de novo determination by the
District Court of the factual findings and legal issues set
forth in the Recommendation and shall “waive the right
to challenge on appeal the district court's order based
on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except
upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of
justice. 11TH Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v.
Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir.
1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th