MALONEY v. STATE OF FLORIDA et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
KEVIN P. MALONEY,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 5:26cv083-MW/MAF
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
Respondents.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION
On February 26, 2026, Kevin P. Maloney, a state inmate proceeding
pro se, submitted to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals a handwritten
“Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” 	ECF No. 1. 	By order on
March 11, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit transferred the matter to this Court,
explaining that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(a), “an
application for an original writ of habeas corpus must be made to the
appropriate district court.” 	ECF No. 1-1.
By order on March 25, 2026, this Court directed Petitioner Maloney to
pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. 	ECF No. 3. 	This Court also directed him to file an amended
§ 2254 petition on the proper form. 	Id.
Case 5:26-cv-00083-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
Case No. 5:26cv083-MW/MAF
Petitioner Maloney has now submitted an “Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form).” 	ECF No. 4.
He has not attached, however, the required “statement certified by the
appropriate 	institutional 	officer 	showing 	all 	receipts, 	expenditures, 	and
balances during the last six months” for his prison account. 	Id. at 1.
Ordinarily, ruling on this IFP motion would be deferred, pending his filing of
an amended motion with the proper documentation. 	As explained below,
however, the better course in this proceeding is to transfer the case file, and
all pending motions, to the Southern District of Florida.
Petitioner Maloney also submitted an amended § 2254 petition, ECF
No. 5, as well as a § 2241 petition, ECF No. 6. 	Because, from the
information he has provided, he challenges his judgment and sentence
entered February 26, 2025, by the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Saint Lucie
County, Florida, he should proceed with the § 2254 petition, rather than the
§ 2241 petition, which is generally used only by federal inmates as well as
state inmates challenging the execution (not imposition) of their sentences.
See ECF No. 5 at 1-2; ECF No. 5 at 1-2.
Petitioner Maloney also indicates he currently has a pending appeal in
the Fourth District Court of Appeal. 	See ECF No. 5 at 3. 	He should know
Case 5:26-cv-00083-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Case No. 5:26cv083-MW/MAF
that habeas petitioners must exhaust state court remedies before seeking
federal habeas review. 	See, e.g., Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir., 410 U.S. 484,
488-89 (1973); Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987);
Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 812 (11th Cir. 2004). 	In particular, a
federal habeas petitioner must first present his federal grounds to the state
courts such that those courts have the opportunity to apply controlling law to
the facts involved in any constitutional claims. 	Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.
270, 275-77 (1971); see O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)
(To properly exhaust state remedies, “state prisoners must give the state
courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking
one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.”).
Petitioner Maloney is currently incarcerated at the Gulf Correctional
Institution, in Wewahitchka, Florida, which is in the Northern District of
Florida. 	See ECF No. 5; 28 U.S.C. § 89(a). 	In the amended § 2254
petition, he challenges his current confinement pursuant to a state court
conviction in case number 2019-CF-0024430, from the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit Court, Saint Lucie County, Florida, which is located in the Southern
District of Florida. 	See ECF No. 1; 28 U.S.C. § 89(c). 	As relief, he asks
the Court to vacate his judgment and sentence. 	ECF No. 5 at 19.
Case 5:26-cv-00083-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
Case No. 5:26cv083-MW/MAF
Jurisdiction 	for 	§ 	2254 	petitions 	is 	appropriate 	in 	the 	district 	of
confinement and the district of conviction. 	28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (providing
that state prisoner may file habeas petition in district of conviction or in district
of incarceration). 	In this case, however, because the district of conviction
appears the most convenient and appropriate venue, this petition should be
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 	See
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in
the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or
division to which all parties have consented.”); Eagle v. Linahan, 279 F.3d
926, 933 n.9 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting “[t]he practice of the district courts in
Georgia is to transfer habeas petitions filed in the district where the petitioner
is confined to the district where the petitioner was convicted”); Mitchell v.
Henderson, 	432 	F.2d 	435, 	436 	(5th 	Cir. 	1970) 	(“Under 	28 	U.S.C.A.
§ 2241(d), state convicts may file federal habeas corpus petitions in the
district either where they are confined or where they were convicted. 	The
purpose of this, of course, is to provide a more convenient forum for
witnesses. 	Although section 2241(d) primarily governs jurisdiction, we
believe it has implications as to venue between divisions in the same district.
Case 5:26-cv-00083-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Case No. 5:26cv083-MW/MAF
Section 2241(d) militates in favor of filing the applicant’s petition in New
Orleans, the division where the witnesses are located, rather than in Baton
Rouge, the division in which the applicant is confined.”). 	See generally Byrd
v. Martin, 754 F.2d 963, 965 (11th Cir. 1985) (explaining prisoner may bring
habeas petition attacking conviction in another state that may subject him to
future custody in that state: 	“In that situation, jurisdiction exists concurrently
in both the district of the prisoner’s confinement and the district in the state
in which the conviction which he seeks to attack was entered. 	The most
convenient forum will often be the district in the state whose conviction is
being attacked, and a transfer of the case to that district is permissible, but
not required, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” (citations omitted)).
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the
case 	file, 	including 	any 	service 	copies 	and 	pending 	motions, 	be
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, for all further proceedings.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 9, 2026.
S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-00083-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
Case No. 5:26cv083-MW/MAF
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	A copy of the objections shall be served upon
all other parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not
control. 	If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge
on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:26-cv-00083-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/09/26 Page 6 of 6