ALFORD v. FCI MARIANNA FLORIDA et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
MICHAEL ALFORD,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5:26cv47/AW/MAL
FCI MARIANNA FL, et al.,
Respondents.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case is before me for preliminary review of the § 2241 petition for writ
of habeas corpus filed by Michael Alford.1 ECF No. 2. For the following reasons, I
recommend that the petition be summarily dismissed.
At the time of filing and now, Petitioner was confined at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey. Because the United States District
Court for the District Court of New Jersey is Petitioner’s district of confinement,
Petitioner should have filed her § 2241 petition there. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (As a general rule for § 2241 petitions, “jurisdiction lies in only
one district: the district of confinement.”).
A petition filed in the wrong district can be transferred to the right one. 28
U.S.C. § 1406. I do not recommend transfer of this petition, however. Mixed in with
1 Petitioner is a transgender female whose preferred name is Michelle Alford. Petitioner will be
referred to using feminine pronouns in this recommendation, but her legal name will also be used.
Case 5:26-cv-00047-AW-MAL Document 5 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
a proper habeas claim challenging a disciplinary action resulting in the loss of 27
days’ good time credit (see ECF Nos. 2 at 7, 2-1 at ¶ 51), Petitioner includes non-
habeas claims in her petition. These non-habeas claims are governed by general
venue statutes and they maybe subject to requirements under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act that do not apply to habeas petitions. Thus, those claims are not
appropriate to transfer.
For example, Petitioner claims that officials at FCI Marianna sent her to FCI
Fairton in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights. ECF Nos. 2 at 6, 2-
1 at 13-20. This claim is not appropriately raised in a habeas petition. See Davis v.
Warden, FCC Coleman-USP I, 661 F. App’x 561, 563 (11th Cir. 2016) (First
Amendment retaliation claim not cognizable in § 2241 proceeding). Petitioner also
complains at length about the conditions of her confinement at FCI Fairton, ECF No.
2-1 at 21-23, and asserts that she will be seeking “damages at a later time in a
separate 42 USC §1983 filing.” Id. at ¶ 54. For now, she is only seeking a transfer
to FCI Marianna Mohawk-A Unit or transfer to the female facility at FCI
Tallahassee. Id. Conditions of confinement claims fall outside the scope of habeas
corpus. Vaz v. Skinner, 634 F. App’x 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2015) (“Claims challenging
the fact or duration of a sentence fall within the ‘core’ of habeas corpus, while claims
challenging the conditions of confinement fall outside of habeas corpus law.”).
Case 5:26-cv-00047-AW-MAL Document 5 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Considering the problems with Petitioner’s mixed claims, rather than
transferring the petition, dismissal of the petition without prejudice to Petitioner’s
opportunity to refile her claims in the appropriate venues is the better course.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. The petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 2, be DISMISSED
without prejudice.
2. The clerk be directed to close the case file.
Done on February 18, 2026.
s/ Midori A. Lowry
Midori A. Lowry
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
This case was referred to a magistrate judge for the issuance of all preliminary
orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters.
See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different deadline
that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only and does
not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections on all other
parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:26-cv-00047-AW-MAL Document 5 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 3