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 much of the petition is incomprehensible
or illegible,  Petitioner seems to indicate that he seeks
to challenge matters associated with how a sentence he is
serving in the Georgia Department of Corrections is being
executed. Doc. 1 at 1. On review, the court concludes the
petition is due to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
petitioner's challenge to the execution of his sentence
is properly considered under § 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 present physical confinement when that
federal court is in neither the district of confinement nor
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 habeas petition. Petitioner is confined at
the Sumter County Jail in Americus, Georgia. As such, the
district of confinement for Petitioner is 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.
visited October 29, 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” warrant no
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 2, 2019,
Petitioner may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any
objection filed must clearly identify the findings in the
Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Petitioner
objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not
be considered by the District Court. Petitioner is advised
that this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore,
it is not appealable.
to file a written objection to the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall
bar a party from a de novo determination by the
District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered
in the report 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
 The words that can be deciphered from
the petition appear largely to concern an automobile
“that was worth a fortune, ” which petitioner
seeks to have returned to him.
 The court takes judicial notice of
federal court records, see Nguyen v.United States,
556 F.3d 1244, 1259 n.7 (11th Cir. 2009), and concludes that
transfer of this action is not in the “interest of
justice” given Petitioner's well-documented
practice of filing “frivolous, vexatious, and
duplicative litigation” in the federal courts of
Georgia. See Cobble v. Neeley, Civil Action No.
1:19-CV-12-LAG-TQL (M. D. Ga. 2019) (Doc. 5) (sanctioning
Petitioner from filing civil actions for two years