United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner,
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 [the] way in which my sentences
[are] being carried[.]” Doc. 1 at 1. Upon 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.
II.
DISCUSSION
A
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.”). Although §
2241(d) creates an 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 is carried out when the
facility in which the prisoner is incarcerated is not within
the district of that federal court or when it is not 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).
Considering
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.[1] See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this
case be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
It is further
ORDERED
that the parties shall file any objections to this
Recommendation on or before December 10, 2019. 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 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein
v. Lanning 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).
DONE.
---------
Notes:
[1]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 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 ...