observing that “Congress explicitly recognized the substantial advantages of having [habeas corpus] cases resolved in the court which originally imposed the confinement or in the court located nearest the site of the underlying controversy.”
How later courts described this case
- observing that “Congress explicitly recognized the substantial advantages of having [habeas corpus] cases resolved in the court which originally imposed the confinement or in the court located nearest the site of the underlying controversy.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL DEWAYNE BARNES, )
AIS 233189, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-CV-668-RAH-KFP
)
ROLANDA CALLOWAY, )
)
Respondent. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Michael Barnes, an inmate incarcerated at Kilby Correctional Facility in
Mt. Meigs, Alabama, brings this application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 He
seeks to challenge the legality of his parole revocation on judgments entered against him
by the Circuit Court for Calhoun County for which he is serving an 18-year term of
imprisonment.2 Doc. 1 at 1. Upon review, the undersigned concludes the petition is due to
be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.3
1 Petitioner initiated this action using the form generally utilized by prisoners to file habeas applications
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and appeared to challenge the constitutionality of his incarceration
following the revocation of his parole in 2014 (id. at 1). Although a habeas petition is authorized by § 2241,
it also is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because petitioner is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state
court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Thus, Barnes’s habeas application has been docketed as a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. 4; see also Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1062 (11th
Cir. 2003); Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 787 (11th Cir. 2004).
2 See https://doc.alabama.gov/inmatesearch.aspx (last visited October 24, 2024).
3 Barnes submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. The assessment and
collection of any filing fee, however, should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.
II. DISCUSSION
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) provides:
Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by a person in
custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court of a State which
contains two or more Federal judicial districts, the application may be filed
in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the
district court for the district within which the State court was held which
convicted and sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have
concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Thus, § 2241(d) confers concurrent jurisdiction over a petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 upon the federal district court for the district
of the state court of conviction and sentencing or the federal district court in the petitioner’s
district of incarceration in that state. Section 2241(d) further provides that either such court
“in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice” may transfer a § 2254 petition
to “the other district court for hearing and determination.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
Barnes was convicted of offenses in the Circuit Court for Calhoun County, and that
court imposed the state sentence he is serving. Calhoun County is located within the federal
judicial district of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
The Court observes that it has jurisdiction to hear Barnes’s § 2254 habeas corpus
application because he is detained within the federal judicial district of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.4 Even so, transfer to the United States
4 Barnes challenges matters associated with a decision by the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles to
deny him parole, and the Board is in Montgomery, Alabama, within the federal judicial district of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The Board, however, is not a “State court” as
provided in § 2241(d) and did not “convict and sentence” Barnes as provided in § 2241(d). See Carmona
v. Andrews, 357 F.3d 535, 538–39 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Mann v. Crabtree, No. 2:18-CV40-WHA, 2018
WL 1354795, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 12, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:18-CV-40-
WHA, 2018 WL 1352169, at *2 (M.D. Ala. March 15, 2018) (following Carmona); Conners v. Alabama
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama—where jurisdiction is appropriate
because of Barnes’s convictions and sentence in that district—is in the interest of justice.
Here, the matters about which Barnes complains stem from his alleged parole
violation(s) following his convictions and sentence in the Circuit Court for Calhoun
County, Alabama. The underlying records and witnesses are therefore likely to be in
Calhoun County, Alabama. Further, if an evidentiary hearing becomes necessary, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama is a more convenient
forum. See Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973) (observing
that “Congress explicitly recognized the substantial advantages of having [habeas corpus]
cases resolved in the court which originally imposed the confinement or in the court located
nearest the site of the underlying controversy.”). It therefore appears that both the interests
of justice and judicial economy would be furthered by a transfer of proceedings to the
Northern District of Alabama.5
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, No. 2:17-CV554-MHT, 2017 WL 5634160, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 6, 2017),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:17CV554-MHT, 2017 WL 5633260 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 22, 2017)
(same).
5 In recommending the transfer of Barnes’s petition, this Court expresses no opinion on the merits of his
claims.
Further, it is ORDERED that by November 8, 2024, the parties may file objections
to this Recommendation. The parties 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 by the Court. This
Recommendation is not a final order, and it is therefore not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo determination by
the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waive
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. 11th CIR. R. 3–1.
DONE this 25th day of October 2024.
/s/ Kelly Fitzgerald Pate
KELLY FITZGERALD PATE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE