United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is an inmate incarcerated in the Sumter County Jail in
Americus, Georgia. He brings this pro se action
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. While the court finds most of
the petition to be non-sensical and largely unintelligible,
to the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge matters
associated with the validity of his detention in a Georgia
state prison or the execution of a sentence imposed by a
state or federal court in Georgia, the court finds 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.”). “Jurisdiction is determined at the
time the action is filed[.]” United States v.
Edwards, 27 F.3d 564 (4th Cir. 1994). 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). The court further
notes that Petitioner's conviction record reflects he is
serving a term of imprisonment imposed by a Georgia state
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.
ORDERED that the motion to admit (Doc. 3) is DENIED.
that on or before December 3, 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
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 court takes judicial notice of
federal court records, seeNguyenv.UnitedStates, 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