MUHAMMAD-ALI
v.
11TH CIR U.S. DISTRICT [30303]
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the habeas petition because the petitioner was confined in a different district, and therefore, the case must be transferred.
Petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. A Magistrate Judge recommended transferring the case to the Middle District of Alabama b…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse District Of Confinement cases and more on FLexlaw
Honorable Lisette M. Reid, United States Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Petitioner’s Petition be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. (“R&R”) (ECF No. 5). Petitioner filed objections. (“Objs.”) (ECF No. 6). The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem,
transferring the Petition to the Middle District of Alabama. “[F]or core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) “Whenever a civil action is filed in a court . . . and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court . . . in which the action or appeal could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Transfer under § 1631 can be initiated sua sponte. Brentwood Inv., LLC v. Stanley, No. 6:13-cv- 1635-Orl-22KRS, 2014 WL 12726559, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2014) (citing Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F. 3d 1210, 1222 (10th Cir. 2006)).
Petitioner’s objections are largely incoherent and not relevant to the question of whether the Court has jurisdiction to consider his Petition. See generally Objs. Indeed, Petitioner does not specifically object to any of Magistrate Judge Reid’s findings or conclusions. See generally id.
Accordingly, a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Reid’s R&R is not warranted because Petitioner does not make a “proper, specific objection” to any of Magistrate Judge Reid’s findings. See Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784.
Therefore, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Reid’s finding that the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the Petition.
Moreover, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Reid’s recommendation that the Court transfer this matter to the Middle District of Alabama. UPON CONSIDERATION of the Petition, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 5) is ADOPTED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to TRANSFER this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, ace DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ist day of October, 2020.
K Ld MOORE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
c: All counsel of record