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 most of the petition
rambling an unintelligible, Petitioner initially states that
he seeks to “challenge [the] way in which my [Georgia]
state sentences are carried out now[.]” Doc. 1 at 1.
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 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 and the he challenges his service
of a term of imprisonment imposed by a Georgia state court.
See https://dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/Offender (last
visited November 19, 2019). Accordingly, § 2241(d)
directs that the only courts with potential jurisdiction to
entertain Petitioner's instant habeas petition are
federal courts 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 3, 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