United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY 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 the majority of the
petition rambling and unintelligible, Petitioner states that
he seeks “to challenge fact that [he is] currently
incarcerated in more than 1 persons custody[.]” Doc. 1
review of the instant § 2241 petition, one of numerous
habeas actions recently filed by Cobble with this court, the
Magistrate Judge finds that the petition is due to be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
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.”). Although § 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 how his sentence(s) are carried out 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 Cir. 1985).
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. As such, 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 that he is now serving a term of
imprisonment on a sentence imposed by a Georgia state court.
See https://dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/Offender (last
visited November 20, 2019). Accordingly, § 2241(d)
directs that the only courts with potential jurisdiction to
entertain Petitioner's instant habeas petition are
federal courts in Georgia. Thus, 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 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 4, 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 written objections to the proposed factual findings
and legal conclusions set forth in the Recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge shall bar a party from a de novo
determination by the District Court of these factual findings
and legal conclusions 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)(“When the magistrate provides such notice and a
party still fails to object to the findings of fact [and law]
and those findings are adopted by the district court the
party may not challenge them on appeal in the absence of
plain error or manifest injustice.”); Henley v.
Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).